1c , Table 2 ; at the limit of significance in the case of DS, p = 0.06).
Excerpts
borderline significancep = 0.06
For the MS component, rates of change were higher (though with borderline significance; p = 0.06) for subjects with well-controlled (0.488 surfaces per year, 95% CI 0.348 to 0.628) and poorly controlled diabetes (0.537 surfaces per year, 95% CI 0.437 to 0.726) compared to subjects without diabetes (0.351 surfaces per year, 95% CI 0.326 to 0.376).
In contrast, bold treatment had a slope approaching significance (m = 0.01, t = 1.90, p = .06) (Fig. 4 b).
In order to assess if TMS affected response accuracy we performed an ANOVA that revealed a main effect of TMS site, F (1,23) = 4.15, p = 0.05, ηp 2 = 0.15, indicating that participants’ accuracy was lower during cerebellar TMS compared with vertex stimulation, and a statistical trend towards a main effect of relatedness, F (1,23) = 3.63, p = 0.06, ηp 2 = 0.13, showing that participants’ accuracy was lower for related word-pairs compared with unrelated word-pairs; critically, the interaction TMS site by relatedness was significant, F (1,23) = 5.26, p = 0.03, ηp 2 = 0.18.
borderline significancep = 0.06
3 B), while standard-disease patients showed lower relapse with borderline significance when compared with advanced-disease patients (60.0%; 95% CI 21.7–84.3% vs. 27.3%; 95% CI 5.7–55.4%; p = 0.06) (Fig. 3 C).
showed a trendp = 0.06
Association of T2 lesion metrics with clinical outcome scores In the OPERA II dataset, log-transformed baseline T2 TLV showed a trend ( p = 0.06) towards association with CDP24 when using the GT or model-predicted masks (Table 4 ) in the univariable CPH analysis.
bordered on significancep = 0.06
Fitting a quasibinomial GLM (dispersion = 5.47) showed the increase in M1% with generation number was significant for females (estimate: 0.37, t = 2.28, df = 6, p < 0.05) and bordered on significance for males (estimate: 0.28, t = 1.78, df = 6, p = 0.06).
a trend toward significancep = 0.06
The differences between C-MHE and C-NMHE patients in CVLT total learning remain significant; there is a trend toward significance (p = 0.06) on delayed recall when comparing C-MHE and C-NMHE patients, probably due to the lower number of patients in this sample, reaching significance when more number of patients are included, as shown in Table 1 .
In addition, there was a strong trend towards a reduced preference for the novel mouse following P80 consumption in female mice (p = 0.06) (Fig. 5 ).
For the measure of exercise, a borderline significant change-change correlation with WM was observed (r main = 0.21, p = 0.06; r supp = 0.19, p = 0.05).
almost reached significancep-value = 0.06
Association between high CD73 expression and worse disease-free survival (DFS) almost reached significance compared with those with low CD73 expression (p-value = 0.06, HR = 1.66, 95% CI = 0.982–2.8) in the control arm but not in the zoledronic acid arm (Fig. 2 C, D; Table 3 ).
the bottom tertile was marginally significant (42.6 vs. 23.9%, P = 0.06 and 38.2 vs. 22.4%, P = 0.07, respectively).
However, in children, the effect of Incentive during the cue phase just failed to reach significance ( p = 0.06).
marginally non-significantp = 0.06
In oviparous females, 128C cells had larger nucleoli than 32C and 64C cells ( p < 0.001 each), yet the difference between 32 and 64C cells was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.06).
4 B, Pearson’s correlation = 0.51, p = 0.061), and an increasing trend in the percent CD4+ CD45RA+ naïve T-cells post-supplement (Fig. 4 C, Pearson’s correlation = 0.50, p = 0.060), and a significantly lower CD4+ CD45RO+: CD4+ CD45RA+ T-cell ratio after supplementation (Fig. 4 D, Pearson’s correlation = 0.67, p = 0.008).
approached significanceP = 0.06
There was no significant difference in the oxygen consumption rate of Complexes I, II or IV with regards to either sex or AKI status in the kidneys, however the OCR of Complex I approached significance (P = 0.06) with females trending higher than males (Supplementary Fig. 2 ).
marginally non-significantp = 0.06
Although post hoc testing identifies marginally non-significant differences in lag time between control and treatments in “Antarctica 3” ( p = 0.06), possibly suggesting greater initial resistance to exposure to CHX, the overall shape of the response was visually very similar to that of strains “Antarctica 1” and “Antarctica 2”.
The difference in physical role was the only marginally significant ( P = 0.06) with slight improvement in SA group (15, 95%CI, − 1–30).
Visceral adipose tissue phenotype and estimated insulin sensitivity In VAT, increased HIF-1α and MCP-1 expression was associated with decreased estimated IS even after correcting for VAT mass (β = − 0.37, p = 0.01 and β = − 0.25, p = 0.03), whereas the associations between increased adipocyte size and PcF and estimated IS were only borderline significant after adjusting for VAT mass (β = − 0.14, p = 0.06 and β = − 0.36, p = 0.06) (Table 3 ).
a trend towards significancep < 0.06
Also in the fully adjusted model, a trend towards significance was seen for longer CLT with higher S100B levels ( p < 0.06, d = 0.19).
When compared differences between Hr-AD and Lr-AD, Hr-AD showed higher elevation of SA rate than Lr-AD with marginal significance (P = 0.06), and it did not show difference in RI between the groups. rTMS increases dopamine concentration and expression of dopamine receptor 4 in AD mouse AD is characterised by markedly reduced concentration of neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine and glutamate in hippocampus and neocortex 31 .
Moreover, increasing age was a marginally significant predictive factor of OS ( P = 0.06).
showed a trendp = 0.06
Individuals with the risk allele genotype of rs33912345 showed a trend of thinner RNFL in the temporal sector, again not statistically significant (A/A 72.8 ± 10.0 μm, A/C 72.0 ± 9.0 μm, C/C 71.2 ± 9.8 μm, p = 0.06).
4 ; P = 0.001), and there was a strong trend towards an increase in Z-score in the UCB group compared to HI (Fig. 4 ; P = 0.06).
approached significancep = 0.06
However, differences in precision between target magnitudes were significant( F 1,83 = 7.0; p = 0.02) and the interaction between domain and target magnitude also approached significance ( F 2,83 = 3.11; p = 0.06).