Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

nominally significantP < 0.051.0× alphagold
The majority of the hypomethylated (20/28) sites showed lower M-values in the SWD group as compared with the controls; accordingly, the majority (9/10) of the hypermethylated showed higher M-values in SWD (one site, cg13823003 from GRIN2C , with a nominally significant difference at P < 0.05, analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Supplementary Table S6 ).
a strong trendp = .051.0× alphagold
Analysis of correlations within each group separately only showed significant results in the bilinguals (again in bilateral hippocampi, localised to bilateral posterior hippocampi, this time with a strong trend ( p = .05) in the right parasubiculum), suggesting again that relationships between episodic memory and hippocampal anatomy may be modulated by bilingualism.
A similar trend was found in layer 5/6 for which, however, differences did not reach statistical significance (SED: 3.064 ± 1.14; RUN: 0.137 ± 0.12; naïve: 0.367 ± 0.24) (One-way ANOVA on ranks, Dunns’ Method, p < 0.05 for difference among the three groups; p = 0.09 SED vs. naïve; p > 0.1 RUN vs. naïve).
Running towards amblyopia recovery.
Sci Rep · 2020 · PMC7391754
highly significantp < 0.051.0× alphaqualifiedgold
With SPSS software (v19.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), statistical analysis of all the collected data was performed via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and a statistically significant difference and a highly significant difference were considered at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.
a decreasing trendp < 0.051.0× alphagold
In the diabetic control group, the blood glucose levels had been also rising since the injection of the STZ by the end of the sixth week; but in the diabetic trained group, a decreasing trend was observed which revealed a significant reduction started at the beginning of the fourth week of the study (p < 0.05).
borderline significancep = 0.0501.0× alpha
This number decreased by 78% to 1667 (SD 1824; p < 0.001; median 953) in the first postoperative week and remained 49% lower during postoperative week 2 (mean 3820; SD 3491; p < 0.001; median 3226), 28% lower during postoperative week 4 (mean 5359; SD 2692; p = 0.015; median 5372) and 20% lower during postoperative week 8 with borderline significance (mean 5983; SD 2559; p = 0.050; median 6207).
marginally significantP = 0.051.0× alphagold
In non-diabetic participants (n = 8610), though the associations of the two GRSs with the four lipids were weakened, the results of causal association analyses were consistent with the analyses in the whole study sample, except for TC which was marginally significant in analysis with the Conservative GRS ( P = 0.05) (Supplemental Table 6 ).