Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = .0951.9× alphagold
For the Orbicularis Oculi muscle we found a significant effect of Time ( F (1,30) = 24.378, p <.001, η p 2 = .45) due to higher EMG activation in the second time window; a trend-like main effect of AU25&26 ( F (2,60) = 2.65, p = .079, η p 2 = .08), and two marginally significant interactions for AU12 X AU6 X AU25&26 (F(4,120) = 2.03, p = .095, η p 2 = .06), and AU12 X Time ( F (1,30) = 3.39, p = .075, η p 2 = .1).
a weak trendP = 0.0961.9× alphagold
With respect to the rs9624472 locus, 2.5 kb downstream, the rs5751876 C allele demonstrated susceptibility to severe malaria ( P = 0.024); 4 kb upstream, the rs2267076 T allele demonstrated a trend of susceptibility to severe malaria ( P = 0.051); and 8 kb upstream, the rs3761422 T allele demonstrated a weak trend of susceptibility to severe malaria ( P = 0.096).
a trend towards significancep = .0961.9× alpha
Gastric Activity Repeated measures ANOVA of the ratio between normal and tachygastric activity did not show effects of ginger or information or their interaction (F(3,144) = 0.644, p = .588) but there was a significant decrease of the ratio over the 4 periods (F(3,144) = 8.207, p<.001) and a trend towards significance of ginger (F(3,144) = 2.156, p = .096) illustrated in an interruption of the decrease at post-drug2 as seen in the placebo condition ( Figure 3 ).
approaching significancep = 0.0961.9× alphagold
On their own, frataxin levels did not predict change in FARS scores (p = 0.503); however, when using multivariate regression analysis to assess the effect of frataxin levels on rate of FARS change controlling for the effect of age and sex, the model was statistically significant (p = 0.002) with age as the main predictor of progression (p<0.001) and frataxin levels approaching significance (p = 0.096).
approached significancep = .0961.9× alpha
The orientation by target interaction was significant, F (1, 73) = 5.061, p = .027, n p 2 = .065, as the mean RT difference between upright and inverted stimuli was not significant for target present trials (M = 8.351, SE = 19.976); t(74) = .418, p = .677, d = 0.03, [-0.29, 0.36], but approached significance for target absent trials (M = 39.671, SE = 203.530; t(74) = 1.688, p = .096, d = 0.12, [-0.20, 0.44]; see Fig 3 ).