Barely Significant
← all phrases

nearly significant

3,288 sentences · 3,288 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 = 0.081.6× alphagold
Although we did not observe a significant difference in the mRNA levels of the upstream regulators of the UPR [IRE1, PEK (PERK), Hsc70-3 (BiP; GRP78), and XBP1] in the GeneChip analysis, a more sensitive analysis by qRT-PCR in male eye imaginal discs expressing mutant hINS compared to the GMR-Gal4 control revealed significant increases in expression of PERK (CG2087), BiP (CG4147), and XBP1 (CG9415) and a nearly significant increase in expression of IRE1 (CG4583; P = 0.08) ( Table S5 ).
nearly significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
We also investigated the same genotypes in stage 11 embryos when only the stripe 2 enhancer was deleted from the native eve locus ( eve ΔMSE / R13) and again found a significant reduction of parasegment 3 in MSE ( p<0.01 , the Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon ranksum test was used here and in all subsequent statistical testing) and nearly significant ( p = 0.08 ) in INV_MSE hemizygotes ( Figure S7 ; Table S4 ).
nearly significantp < 0.081.6× alphagold
The ANOVA ‘one-way between groups’ analysis carried out with social support as the dependent variable suggested that those who valued the meetings as most meaningful also experienced the most improvement in social support, which was nearly significant (p < 0.08).
nearly significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
The mean operation time demonstrated a nearly significant difference, with the DGE group exhibiting shorter operation times compared to the non-DGE group (190 min vs. 199 min, p = 0.08). 3.4.
nearly significantP = 0.081.6× alphagold
The frequency of coughing pigs, e.g., the number of coughing pigs divided by total number of pigs in pen given a DPI, as measured by the observer was a significant predictor for MHP DNA detection in pen oral fluid samples (beta coefficient = 4.85; SE = 1.59; P < 0.001; Model A) and nearly significant in pen drinker wipes (beta coefficient = 3.25; SE = 1.88; P = 0.08; Model B).