Barely Significant
← all phrases

nearly significant

3,280 sentences · 3,280 papers · 3,797 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.0579p=0.06

Listed by Hankins, posted since · Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

nearly significantP = 0.0651.3× alphagold
And they also found a nearly significant slow growth rate among the SRMs with homogeneity on postcontrast images ( P = 0.065) and hypointensity on T2-weighted images ( P = 0.074).
Natural history of small renal masses.
Chin Med J (Engl) · 2015 · PMC4831552
nearly significantp = 0.0651.3× alphagold
The effect of filtration size was nearly significant for Run 1 (most likely coefficient ± SE = 0.116±0.064, X 2 = 3.40, df = 1, p = 0.065 in MLR) but not for Run 2 (most likely coefficient ± SE = 0.019±0.038, X 2 = 0.235, df = 1, p = 0.628) or Run 3 (most likely coefficient ± SE = −0.063±0.076, X 2 = 0.688, df = 1, p = 0.407).
nearly significantp=0.0661.3× alphagold
Within this group, specific consideration of ischemic type biliary lesions (ITBL), as a non-anastomotic stricture, showed nearly significant values for positive donor-specific antibodies against donor human leukocyte antigen results (8 (42.1%) versus 8 (19.5%); p=0.066) ( Table 4 ).
nearly significantp = .0661.3× alphagold
Although both WAT cell number and size were both associated with tissue mass ( Figure 1A , B , F , and G ), the present work indicates that the preferential utilization of rWAT and scWAT following CR was caused solely by a reduction in cell size ( Figure 1D and I ), but cell numbers were nearly significant ( p = .066) in rWAT.
nearly significantp = 0.0661.3× alphagold
In the combined datasets, we observed nearly significant correlation (p = 0.066) between high XPO6 mRNA levels and worse relapse-free survival (RFS) in lymph-node-positive, but not lymph-node-negative, patients ( Figure S2E ), and this was confirmed using an individual dataset ( GSE21653 ) ( Finetti et al., 2008 ) ( Figure S2F ).
nearly significantp = 0.0661.3× alphagold
A nearly significant Group × Response category interaction [ F (3,108) = 2.470; p = 0.066] could be partially explained by a number of correct responses (Hit and CR) tending to be significantly higher in young than in elderly subjects and a number of incorrect responses (FA and Miss) tending to be significantly higher in the elderly than in the young cohort ( p's < 0.001).