Barely Significant
← all phrases

“a nonsignificant trend”

5,407 sentences · 5,407 papers · 7,516 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p<0.1

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

a nonsignificant trendp = .0831.7× alphagold
We also investigated whether the fMRI correlates of an item’s value or state congruency varied between the first and second item, finding a nonsignificant trend toward a greater effect of state congruency for the first versus second item in the vmPFC (−3, 33, −12; p = .083 FWE SVC).
a nonsignificant trendP = 0.0841.7× alphagold
Third, among the patients with 9 AS with preserved renal function (defined as baseline eGFR > 60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ), the chronic eGFR slope showed a nonsignificant trend toward improvement (from −3.00 to −0.24 ml/min per 1.73m 2 /yr; P = 0.084; Supplementary Figure S1 A) and time-averaged proteinuria decreased by 18.7% with a medium effect size (1067 ± 721 to 868 ± 733 mg/g; P = 0.129; Cohen’s d = 0.600).
a nonsignificant trendp = 0.0851.7× alphagold
The probability of swapping (i.e., nontarget reports; Figure 3C ) did not depend on whether the items were spatially close or far away from each other in 2-D space, F (1, 26) = 1.633, p = 0.213, and there was a nonsignificant trend toward more swap errors when targets were presented on different depth planes, F (1, 26) = 3.211, p = 0.085.
a nonsignificant trendp = 0.0861.7× alphagold
qPCR results vACC-ACAN and vACC-HAPLN Females, on average, displayed higher HAPLN mRNA expression levels in the vACC when compared to males in a nonsignificant trend with a medium effect size (F (1, 34) = 3.130, p = 0.086; partial η2 = 0.08 Fig. 2 B).
a nonsignificant trendp = 0.0861.7× alphagold
Complementary models are presented in the Supplementary Material : at baseline, VO 2 peak was also the only significant predictor of TUG performance ( Supplementary Table S9 ; R 2 = 0.148; β = −0.416, p = 0.035), with no contribution from muscle mass (p = 0.704); at post-intervention, VO 2 peak predicted both TUG time ( Supplementary Table S10 ; R 2 = 0.301; β = −0.372, p = 0.003) and 6MWT distance ( Supplementary Table S11 ; R 2 = 0.248; β = 14.590, p = 0.011), while muscle mass showed only a nonsignificant trend (p = 0.086 and p = 0.072, respectively).