Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

nearly significantp = .0631.3× alphagold
As in the main experiment, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of Congruence [F(1,20) = 20.09, MSE = 1792.32, p < .0003, η p 2 = .50], reflecting a higher percentage of antisaccades in the incongruent trials (10.56 ± 1.64%) compared to the congruent trials (6.03 ± 1.26%), and a nearly significant effect of SOA [F(1,20) = 20.09, MSE = 513.23, p = .063, η p 2 = .16], reflecting a higher percentage of antisaccades when the distracting gaze preceded (9.51 ± 1.81%) the instruction cue onset, rather than followed it (7.08 ± 1.13%).
near significanceP = 0.0631.3× alphagold
For the group in Saudi Arabia, a single 7-day cosine model approximates these average relative daily rhythm-adjusted mean value (Midline Estimating Statistic of Rhythm, MESOR) with near significance ( P = 0.063), while a two-component model including the 3.5-day term reaches significance ( P = 0.045).
nearing significancep = .0631.3× alphagold
These results showed a significant overall interaction across stimulus types, F(2,52) = 3.616, p = .034, η 2 p = 0.122, such that the CS+ previously paired with the safety signal elicited significantly higher SCR than the CS-, t(26) = 2.502, p = .019, 95% CI[0.007,0.721], indicating a fear response was reinstated, while the CS+ previously paired with the social support reminder did not, t(26)=-0.633, p = .532, 95% CI[-0.210,0.397], indicating no reinstated fear response.Additionally, the CS+ previously paired with the safety signal elicited SCR marginally higher (but nearing significance) compared to the CS+ previously paired with the social support reminder, t(26) = 1.943, p = .063, 95% CI[-0.018,0.623] (see Fig. 5 c).
marginally significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
There was no significant main effect of ASD likelihood status on awakenings (Waldχ 2 = 1.116, p = 0.291), but there was a significant interaction between visit and ASD likelihood status (Waldχ 2 = 10.777, p = 0.005); post-hoc tests revealed no significant group difference in awakenings at 5 months (Waldχ 2 = 1.773, p = 0.183), but a significant difference at 10 months with infants at EL waking more often (Waldχ 2 = 5.068, p = 0.024), and a marginally significant difference, in the same direction, at 14 months (Waldχ 2 = 3.465, p = 0.063).
nearly significantP = 0.06391.3× alphagold
After adjusting for confounding factors, the overall effect in the NIHSS score model remained significant (adjusted OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.40, P = 0.0361), and the overall effect in the GCS model was nearly significant (adjusted OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29, P = 0.0639), with the direction of the effect consistently suggesting an increased risk (Table 3 ).
a nonsignificant trendp = 0.0641.3× alphagold
Attention modulated trust levels for high and neutral trust faces (β high = 0.31 ± 0.091, t = 3.37, p = 0.001; β neutral = 0.40 ± 0.091, t = 4.38, p < 10 −4 ), with a nonsignificant trend for low trust faces (β low = 0.17 ± 0.091, t = 1.87, p = 0.064).