Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

a trend towards significancep = 0.061.2× alpha
Analysis of synchronization variability as determined by the standard deviation of tap-to-tone asynchronies revealed a trend towards significance of factor time ( F (1, 17) = 3.91, p = 0.06), while neither stimulation ( F (2, 34) = 0.45, p = 0.64) nor the stimulation x time interaction were found to be significant ( F (2, 34) = 0.048, p = 0.91).
nearly significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
Notably, the comparison in AZGP1 in the unbound fraction was nearly significant (p = 0.06) and demonstrated a similar trend of increased levels in PCa patients, suggesting that AZGP1 may be over-expressed at the protein level and not necessarily displaying differential glycosylation.
almost significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
Those participants with a conservation index equal or below 0.7 had a greater relative increase in BMI (Kruskal-Wallis Test χ 2 = 11.4, p < 0.005) and almost significant decreases in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (Kruskal-Wallis Test χ 2 = 5.8, p = 0.06) and in HDL-cholesterol concentrations (Kruskal-Wallis Test χ 2 = 5.8, p = 0.05) from baseline to 4-years follow-up than those with higher conservation index.
almost significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
The improvement of IPSS and IIEF5 scores also correlate with amplitude of MMN wave (r = −0.639; p = 0.04, and r = 0.628; p = 0.05, respectively) and there were almost significant correlations of IPSS with the other electrophysiological parameters (latency: r = 0.546, p = 0.06; and area: r = −0.368, p = 0.06).
marginally insignificantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
The proportion of both age groups declines back to early Epipaleolithic levels in the EPPNB and remains low through the MPPNB (significant difference between NAT&PPNA and E&MPPNB fawns; t = −1.92; df = 7; p = 0.05; and marginally insignificant difference between NAT&PPNA and E&MPPNB juveniles; t = −1.95; df = 4; p = 0.06).
approached significancep = 0.061.2× alpha
Furthermore, the correlations approached significance for lower receptor expression being associated with lower CORT increase in response to restraint (r = 0.50; F 1,13 = 4.23; p = 0.06; Fig. 5c ) and higher CORT after dexamethasone injection (r = −0.49; F 1,13 = 4.23; p = 0.06; Fig. 5e ), whereas we found no significant association between receptor expression and stress-induced CORT (r = −0.28; F 1,13 = 1.10; p = 0.31; Fig. 5b ), negative feedback (r = −0.38; F 1,13 = 2.27; p = 0.15; Fig. 5d ), and CORT after ACTH (r = 0.07; F 1,13 = 0.06; p = 0.81; Fig. 5g ).
marginally significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
This analysis yielded a marginally significant main effect of scalp location [ F (1, 23) = 3.82, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.14], showing that 8–13 Hz rhythm is tended to be suppressed stronger in central C3 and C4 sites; a significant interaction effect between chase type and scalp location [ F (1, 23) = 4.65, p = 0.04, η p 2 = 0.17].
marginally significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
Simple effect analysis showed that significant or marginally significant differences between the valid and invalid locations occurred at electrodes P4, P7, and P8 (P4v-i = − 0.507 μV, p = 0.06; P7v-i = − 0.506 μV, p < 0.01; P8v-i = − 0.538 μV, p < 0.05), and a significant maximum difference between the valid and invalid locations was found in the P8 electrode (− 0.538 μV).