Barely Significant

Excerpts

3,451 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantP = 0.0651.3× alphagold
However, marginally significant p-values in knowledge and perceived severity suggested a difference between groups believing that alcohol consumption favors students' school performance ( P = 0.065) and how serious students' alcohol consumption is during weekends ( P = 0.093), respectively.
a slight trend toward significancep = .0661.3× alphagold
Participants who were caregivers for immunocompromised individuals did not significantly differ for any of the considered variables, although the Intrusion subscale showed a slight trend toward significance (IES_RI; U = 53,209, z = − 1.83, p = .066).
near significancep = 0.0661.3× alphagold
Introduced cases situation For the scenario of disease case introduction, we only obtained significant explanatory linear models for DEN, but not for CHIK and ZIKA (for the perception of the future risk of chikungunya case introduction nationwide, only the NPS variable was near significance; F = 3.481, p = 0.066).
borderline significantp = 0.0671.3× alphagold
A Kruskal-Wallis Test indicated an overall inverse trend of dietary variety with food system trust (Table 4 ), while a Fisher’s Exact test also revealed that distrusters were more likely to have lower healthy dietary fats scores compared with trusters, although this was borderline significant ( p = 0.067). 3.2.3.
borderline significantp = 0.0681.4× alphagold
In both cases, the crude difference between intervention and control arm was significant (among women: OR = 4.7; p < 0.001 and among men: OR = 1.77; p = 0.001); after adjustment for baseline differences, the difference in what the men reported was borderline significant (aOR = 1.36; p = 0.068) (see Table 2 ).
marginal significanceP = 0.0691.4× alphagold
After adjusting for demographic characteristics (Model 2), the protective association remained robust for the upper-middle SES group (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.54–0.81, P < 0.001), while the high SES group maintained a similar magnitude of protection albeit with marginal significance (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.13–0.97, P = 0.069).
showed a trendp = 0.071.4× alpha
While no significant difference in absolute change in behaviors was noted between groups, participants not infected during follow-up showed a trend towards greater decreases in masking behavior in indoor public spaces (-0.49 vs. -0.33, p = 0.07) or masking in other people’s houses (-0.30 vs. -0.13, p = 0.06) compared to infected participants.