Barely Significant
← all phrases

nominally significant

2,742 sentences · 2,742 papers · 9,414 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.08

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

In the literature

nominally significantp = 0.0370.7× alphagold
A nominally significant association with bleeding risk persisted only for rosuvastatin (OR = 2.189; 95% CI: 1.039–4.612; p = 0.037), but this finding should be interpreted with caution and regarded as exploratory. 3.4.
nominally significantp = .0370.7× alphagold
An initial synthesis of the volume data from the left and right habenula using a paired samples t ‐test also supported this point: no significant interhemispheric differences for either the healthy samples ( t (24) = 1.443, p = .162, Cohen d = 0.289), or the patients with SCZ ( t (4) = −0.550, p = .612, d = −0.246); there appeared to be a nominally significant difference in MDD subgroup ( t (10) = 2.403, p = .037, d = 0.725), but it did not survive correction of multiple testing.
nominally significantp -value = 0.0380.8× alphagold
Longitudinal stratification of the CIPN phenotypes to examine links for neuropathy, identified nominally significant protective associations with the GSTM* null allele ( p -value = 0.038, OR = 0.55) and the presence of pain at month 2 of treatment, as well as a risk factor for pain related month 2 of treatment for individuals with the GSTT1* null allele ( p -value = 0.030, OR = 1.64).
nominally significantp = 0.0380.8× alphagold
Among diabetic patients, a nominally significant difference in unadjusted event rates was observed (12% vs. 35%, p = 0.038), though this exploratory subgroup analysis requires cautious interpretation given the small sample and absence of adjustment for confounders. 4.1.
nominally significantp = 0.0380.8× alphagold
Additional sensitivity analyses showed that the cML-MA-BIC-DP method (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.53–0.69, p = 3.85 × 10 −11 ) yielded a similar result to IVW and weighted median methods ( Table 5 ), while the association from MR-APSS method was nominally significant (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05–0.92, p = 0.038) ( Table 5 ; Supplementary Figure S2 ).
nominally significantp = 0.03990.8× alphagold
Progression-free survival (PFS) was also significant ( p = 6.730 × 10 −3 ; q = 0.0143), disease-specific survival (DSS) was nominally significant but borderline after FDR correction ( p = 0.0399; q = 0.0532), and disease-free survival (DFS) was not significant ( p = 0.0903; q = 0.0903) ( Figure 4 , Table S3 ).
nominally significantP = 0.0400.8× alphagold
In the GAMs analysis, two variables showed nominally significant effects: baseline PNS index ( P = 0.040, b splin e 1 = − 0.942 ) and gender ( P = 0.028, coefficient = − 0.1332 ), with partial effects illustrated in Figure 5 and full results reported in the Supplementary Materials ( Supplementary data online , Table S5 , Supplementary data online , Figure S10 ).
nominally significantp = 0.040.8× alphagold
Longitudinal change in total recall performance was nominally significant ( p = 0.04) between the PiB + and PiB − groups, and total recall at baseline was also significantly different between groups ( p < 0.01) indicating, as expected, a more overt cognitive decline was present in the individuals with positive PiB scans.
nominally significantp = .040.8× alphagold
8 In the multivariable Cox model reported by Ruhwedel et al., the overall effect of primary tumor location was not statistically significant ( p = .11), but there was a nominally significant association for shorter OS in patients with pancreatic versus gastrointestinal NETs during [ 177 Lu]Lu‐edotreotide therapy ( p = .04). 33 However, there are prognostic differences between NETs of different origin, depending on the aggressiveness of disease. 44 , 45 Overall, our findin