Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

borderline significantp = .00390.1× alphagold
Additionally, the two age cohorts in the NHI group performed comparably, except for subtests targeting phonological processing and/or memory (independent-samples two-tailed Welch t-tests: Discourse Comprehension, t = -3.47, p = .001; Nonword Repetition, t = -4.17, p < .001; Sentence Production, t = -4.01, p < .001; and borderline significant for Sentence Repetition, t = -3.01, p = .0039), with significance value Bonferroni-corrected to p = .05/13 = .0038.
weakly significantp = 0.0040.1× alphaqualifiedgold
Using this approach, GEE with ICP as the independent variable weighted for distance of measurement and ONHV or ONHH as the dependent variable were weakly significant for ONHV (B = 0.020, SE = 0.007, p = 0.004) and interestingly significant for ONHH with a negative association (B = −0.003, SE = 0.0005, p<0.001), meaning that IIH patients with a high ICP showed a more depressed ONHH.
highly significantp = .0040.1× alphaqualifiedgold
As a further check that the interaction of Group with O-Span was not an artefact of ‘regressing out’ age effects within the older group which correlated with WMC, we also ran the model without age as a predictor, and the interaction of Group with O-Span remained highly significant (β = .47, t (33) = 3.14, p = .004; for model, R 2 = .32, F (3,31) = 4.84, MSE = 14.2, p = .007).
close to significancep = 0.0040.1× alpha
In contrast, the proportion of fT3 to tT3 was highest in mole-rats (0.38±0.14%; rats: 0.17±0.09%; guinea pigs 0.23±0.08%), with differences being statistically significant in the comparison with rats and close to significance threshold in the comparison with guinea pigs (one-way ANOVA: F = 7.724, p = 0.004; Bonferroni post hoc comparison: mole-rats vs. rats: p = 0.004; mole-rats vs. guinea pig: p = 0.075; rat vs. guinea pig: p >0.99; Figure 4 ).