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 = 0.05591.1× alphagold
In our series, there was a nonsignificant trend toward earlier fusion in patients having ALIF compared with patients having LLIF at 6 months (66% versus 45%; p = 0.0559); however, by 24 months the fusion rates were similar (100% versus 95%; p = 0.1948).
a nonsignificant trendP = 0.0561.1× alphagold
Muscle mass showed a nonsignificant trend toward reduction, from 30.1 ± 7.2 kg to 29.1 ± 6.4 kg (−2.7% ± 3.2% change, P = 0.056), suggesting that the intervention may have helped mitigate the loss of lean mass associated with weight reduction ( Fig. 2 ).
a nonsignificant trendp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
After adjustment, hypoalbuminemia remained an independent predictor of inferior EFS (HR 4.40; 95% CI, 1.52–12.7; p = 0.003), while elevated direct bilirubin showed a nonsignificant trend toward poorer outcomes (HR 2.52; 95% CI, 0.94–6.75; p = 0.056) ( Table 4 ). 3.7 Extent of hepatomegaly and survival in patients with preserved liver function Among patients with hepatomegaly and preserved liver function, outcomes were further examined according to the degree of liver enlargement.
a nonsignificant trendp = .0561.1× alphagold
Crucially, the two-way interaction of the sequence of irrelevant stimuli and correct responses was significant (see Figure 2C ), F (1, 44) = 21.07, p < .001, η p 2 = .32, indicating typical binding and retrieval effects as repetitions of the correct response showed a nonsignificant trend to be faster with repetitions than changes of irrelevant stimuli ( M = 3.60 ms, SD = 12.30 ms), t (44) = 1.96, p = .056, d z = 0.29, while changes of the correct response were significantly slower for repetitions rather than changes of irrelevant stimuli ( M = −5.68 ms, SD = 7.91 ms), t (44) = −4.81, p < .001, d z = −0.72.
a nonsignificant trendp = .0571.1× alphagold
There were also several unpredicted significant effects and trends, including a significant interaction of Target Sex and Attribute Type [ F (1, 15) = 7.96, p = .013; η 2 = .347], which is explored in more detail below, a nonsignificant trend toward a main effect of Target Sex [ F (1, 15) = 4.24, p = .057; η 2 = .220], and a nonsignificant trend toward a three-way interaction [ F (1, 15) = 3.24, p = .092; η 2 = .178].
a nonsignificant trendp =.0571.1× alphagold
The difference between partners was not significant for any of the chimpanzee infants, the Gombe infants, F (1,11) = 1.462, p =.252, eta p 2 = 0.25, or the PRI infants, F (1,2) = 2.378, p =.23, eta p 2 = 0.543, although there was a nonsignificant trend (with a large effect size) in the Chester chimpanzee infants, F (1,3) = 0.075, p =.057, eta p 2 = 0.75.