Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginal significanceP = 0.05051.0× alphagold
Specifically, BUSTED detected one positively selected cone-expressed gene, CNGB3 , along the ancestral Euarchontoglires branch, which was not detected by PAML, and BUSTED also detected one cone-expressed gene, SWS1 , at close to marginal significance ( P = 0.0505), which was found to be under positive selection by PAML.
nearly reached significanceP = 0.05061.0× alpha
There was an increase in HIF-1α mRNA expression that nearly reached significance in the RS group ( P = 0.0506), and the HIF-1α target gene, VEGFa, and VEGFR2 mRNA had significantly higher expression levels in the RS group compared to the control group (Fig. 5A–C ).
nearly significantp = 0.05061.0× alphagold
The results (Table 4 ) show that all of these parameters, when combined in a multiple regression model, were significantly different between cases and controls, except testosterone levels, which were nearly significant with a p -value slightly above 0.05 ( p = 0.0506), and smoking status, which was not significant.
While sex was included as an independent term in the best model (Table 1 ), the correlation between the sex of the badger and the frequency with which they made ETEs did not quite reach significance (P = 0.0506, Table 2 ) across the whole year, although the trend was towards males making, on average, more frequent ETEs throughout the year (Fig. 4 – mean values).
only marginally significantp = 0.0511.0× alphagold
While the rate of successful reperfusion was only marginally significant at 83.3% for patients with a good outcome compared to 50.0% for those with a poor outcome ( p = 0.051), the rate of successful reperfusion of newly embolized territory was significantly higher in the good outcome group (91.7%) than in the poor outcome group (30.8%, p < 0.001), with shorter procedure time (53 ± 27 min vs. 113 ± 55 min, respectively, p < 0.001).
close to significancep = 0.0511.0× alpha
However, improvement with envelope expansion was close to significance for pairs differing by both place of articulation and voicing (mean difference: 10.2%; SD: 18.1%; t (31) = 3.2, p = 0.051) and for voiced fricative pairs differing by place of articulation (mean difference: 11.7%; SD: 22.1%; t (31) = 3.0, p = 0.074).
marginally significantp = 0.0511.0× alphagold
As displayed in the Supplementary Materials (Table S4 ), all findings remained significant ( p < 0.01), except for the direct daily association between NO 2 and fatigue which became marginally significant ( p = 0.051) but continued to be qualified by the significant interaction.