Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

close to significancep = 0.0531.1× alpha
The effect of g on the total LCD was not significant, although close to significance threshold (F(2.001, 30.009) = 2.174, p = 0.053, η 2 = 0.038) and associated with a significant g *group effect (F(4.001,30.009) = 4.922, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.173) and no significant group effect (F2,15) = 2.542, p = 0.112, η 2 = 0.133).
marginally significantp = 0.0531.1× alphagold
Pairwise comparisons revealed the largest significant differences between AF—AL and AF—AP ( p = 0.009 for both), followed by AA—AF ( p = 0.019) and AA—AP ( p = 0.040); a marginally significant difference between AA—AL ( p = 0.053); and a close association between AL and AP ( p = 0.068); however, after correction for multiple sampling, differences were significant only for the AF—AL and AF—AP comparisons.
borderline significanceP = 0.0531.1× alpha
After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline CFT in a multiple regression analysis, the presence of PED, disrupted ELM and EZ, and greater baseline CFT were still significantly associated with baseline visual acuity ( P = 0.022, 0.003, <0.001, 0.024, respectively), while the presence of IRC showed a similar trend but with borderline significance ( P = 0.053).
borderline significantP = 0.0531.1× alphagold
In patients with HFpEF, patients who had a GAI of 100% also had a significantly reduced overall mortality at the 1-year and 2-year follow-up (P = 0.003 and 0.013, respectively), but the difference became borderline significant (P = 0.053) at the end of the 3-year follow-up (Fig. 1C ).
marginally significantp = 0.0531.1× alphagold
That is, the effect of negative affectivity on total COBEL scores varied between the genders, β = 0.669, p = 0.034. As can be seen from Supplementary Table 1 , in boys the link between negative affectivity and olfactory reactivity and awareness was positive, although marginally significant, Spearman’s ρ = 0.247, p = 0.053, Cohen’s d = 0.62.