Barely Significant
← all phrases

did not reach statistical significance

111,028 sentences · 111,028 papers · 0 search hits before verification

In the literature

borderline significancep =0.0711.4× alpha
did not reach statistical significancep =0.0711.4× alphaplainly factual
Although the difference in the mean SCE levels between the patient and first-degree relative group did not reach statistical significance, the borderline significance ( p =0.071) in this case may indicate a high level of chromosomal instability in breast cancer families.
did not reach statistical significanceP = 0.0711.4× alphaplainly factual
showed a trendP = 0.0711.4× alpha
Although ED crowding (number of Level I-II patients > 5 within 2 h) showed a trend toward increased under-triage (OR = 1.610), this did not reach statistical significance in the adjusted model ( P = 0.071).
The Q2 group did not show significant differences from the Q1 group in any of the models, while the Q4 group displayed a near-significant trend in the fully adjusted model (β = 0.021, 95% CI: −0.002 to 0.045, P = .071), though this did not reach statistical significance.
However, in commission errors (incorrect response rate to No-Go trials), sex showed a trend-level effect (QM(1) = 3.26, p = 0.071), with some indication of a potentially lower rate of commission errors in females compared to males, though this result did not reach statistical significance.
a trend toward significancep = 0.0711.4× alpha
did not reach statistical significancep = 0.5911.8× alphaplainly factual
The tumor size also showed a trend toward significance (OR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3; p = 0.071), while the patient age and Ki-67 proliferation index did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.59 and p = 0.41, respectively) (Table 2 ).
[ 21 , 50 ] Among astrocyte‐enriched synaptogenic factors, Thbs1 (encoding TSP1, an established astrocyte‐secreted protein that promotes excitatory synaptogenesis [ 32 ] ) showed a strong trend toward lower expression in PERK cKO mPFC tissue ( P = 0.0715; Figure 6E ), although this did not reach statistical significance.
did not reach statistical significancep = 0.0721.4× alphaplainly factual
showed a trendp = 0.0721.4× alpha
In the multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, ECOG PS, histology, disease stage, PD‐L1 status, presence of metastases and treatment regimen, the association with OS remained significant (adjusted HR: 1.539, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.156–2.048], p = 0.003), whereas PFS showed a trend toward shorter survival that did not reach statistical significance (adjusted HR: 1.253, 95% CI: [0.980–1.602], p = 0.072) (Table 2 ).
Notably, predialysis urine output showed a trend toward higher values in the control group (844.9 ± 548.1 vs 653.1 ± 494.6 mL, p =0.072, SMD = 0.367), though this did not reach statistical significance.
showed a trendP = 0.0721.4× alpha
did not reach statistical significanceP = 0.0941.9× alphaplainly factual
Comparing the groups with and without overt lymphoid neoplasm (lymphoma), laboratory analysis showed a trend toward lower CD3 + (PAN-T) cell percentages (P = 0.072) and lower CD4 + helper T cell percentages (P = 0.068), both of which were more frequently below the age-adjusted lower limit of normal (LLN) in the overt lymphoid neoplasm (lymphoma) group, though these differences did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.094 for CD3 + T cells %; P = 0.084 for CD4 + helper T cells %).
a trend toward significancep = 0.0731.5× alpha
did not reach statistical significancep = 0.0731.5× alphaplainly factual
Although the effect on the 10MWT evaluation in the EG (R 2 = 0.99) did not reach statistical significance after FDR correction, a trend toward significance was observed for the following interactions: gender × session ( p = 0.073), TSI × session ( p = 0.089), and cadence × session ( p = 0.073). 4.
Regarding financial circumstances, there was a marginally significant difference between groups in PIFS scores ( t 96.05 =1.81; P =.073), with the intervention group reporting slightly higher financial stress (mean 49.60, SD 14.67) than the control group (mean 44.10, SD 16.24), though this difference did not reach statistical significance at the conventional alpha level.
However, time (pre–post treatment) × RR50% interaction approached significance ( F (1,40) = 3.383, p = 0.073), suggesting a possible trend toward greater sleep improvement over time in responders, though this did not reach statistical significance.