“a numerical trend”

In multivariate analysis adjusted as described above, a numerical trend ( P = 0.12) toward more cartilage volume loss in the medial compartment in Ext+ patients was found with statistical significance at the medial femur ( P = 0.053) (data not shown).

The fermentation profile showed few changes with the diets; a numerical trend was observed in the Salmonella trial ( P = 0.12) for an increase in the valeric acid proportion in the colon with DIC detected on d 4 PI.

Individuals from neighborhoods with higher SAI scores had a numerical trend towards shorter LOS (4.00 [3.00, 7.00] vs 3.00 [2.00, 5.00], p = 0.123).

In terms of prognostic significance, a numerical trend indicated that higher serum IL2Rα levels were associated with poorer survival outcomes ( p = 0.124, HR = 0.309, 95% CI: 0.069–1.381) (Figure 2 C), though the wide confidence interval suggests the need for larger cohort validation.

No significant changes were detected in TNF-α, except a numerical trend with ZnO to decrease at day 4 PI ( p = 0.124). 3.6.

In contrast, although there was a numerical trend toward fewer cases of septic shock in the S-UAS group, the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.11–1.31; p = 0.125; I 2 = 0%) (Fig. 7 ).

This group exhibited a numerical trend toward worse symptom onset-to-balloon times (353 ± 196 vs. 289 ± 250 min, p = 0.13) and significantly worse door-to-balloon times (median 78.3 vs. 54 min, p = 0.004).

Although underpowered and not statistically significant (with only 12 of the cohort having undergone repeat 31 P spectroscopy), there was a numerical trend towards improvement of cardiac energetics following weight loss surgery with a ∼10% increase in PCr/ATP ratio ( P = 0.13).

There was no statistical difference, but a numerical trend for a reduction in major access site-related complications with an ultrasound-guided puncture (4.65% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.135).

For the plausibility-rating task, there was a numerical trend toward higher accuracy in the context-match condition (96.5%, SD = 0.2%) than in the context-mismatch condition (95.9%, SD = 0.2%), F (1, 59) = 2.29, p = .136, adj ƞ p 2 = .021.

Patients with high intensity exercise over time (>6 METs for >4 h/week for 5 years) did not have significantly higher incidence of severe VA, however, there was a numerical trend (26% vs.10%, P = 0.14).

Overall survival data were immature, but a numerical trend for improvement was seen, with median overall survival of 13.9 months vs 12.3 months (HR = 0.84; P = .14), respectively.

In our updated meta‐analysis, short‐term mortality did not differ significantly between obese and non‐obese patients, although there was a numerical trend toward lower early mortality in the obese group (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59–1.08, p = 0.15), and follow‐up mortality at ≥ 1 year likewise showed no significant difference, with a similar trend favoring obese recipients (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56–1.17, p = 0.25).

The effects of the ETEC F4 challenge were milder, with only a numerical trend seen for a lower ADFI in the post-inoculation period (333.65 vs. 367.95 g for challenged and non-challenged groups, respectively, p = 0.152).

Age > 40 years demonstrated a numerical trend toward increased risk for OS (HR, 5.35; P = 0.154) and LFS (HR, 2.81; P = 0.105) without reaching statistical significance.

There was a numerical trend toward superior 1-year RFS among patients with PD-L1 positive disease compared to those with PD-L1 negative disease, using CPS of ≥10 (100% vs . 66.7%, p = 0.1551) and ≥1 (84.2% vs . 61.1%, p = 0.1510) cutoffs.

Overall, despite a numerical trend, no improvement in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint was identified (hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.41–1.16; P = 0.16).

While mutation-positive patients exhibited a numerical trend towards longer intervals in the entire cohort (219.5 versus 202.0 days; p = 0.168), this disparity was not statistically significant and was entirely absent within the preoperative subgroup.

Five-year survival did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, although a numerical trend favoring the MWT group was observed (88.1% vs. 83.4%; log-rank p = 0.17).

A comparison was performed between the patients with the exon 19 deletion and those with the L858R mutation and identified a numerical trend that favored the exon 19 deletion compared with the L858R mutation in the TTD and OS {TTD: HR =2.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69–7.70]; P=0.17; OS: HR =2.39 (95% CI: 0.72–7.94); P=0.16} ( Figure S2A,S2B ).

When ICIs were compared to chemotherapy, ICIs were found to enhance OS (HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59–0.92, P = 0.006), but the improvement in PFS and ORR was only a numerical trend (PFS: HR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63–1.09, P = 0.173; ORR: RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.77–1.10, P = 0.372).

Although there was a numerical trend toward more non-shockable rhythms (PEA/asystole) in non-survivors (33% vs. 9% in survivors), this difference did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.18, Fisher’s exact test).

Adjuvant chemotherapy showed a numerical trend (HR 5.34, P = 0.182), likely reflecting confounding by indication as chemotherapy was administered to higher-risk patients.

carboplatin–etoposide) showed a numerical trend favoring cisplatin–etoposide (13.1 vs. 7.1 months, p = 0.182).

Although a numerical trend toward a higher proportion of PR3-ANCA positive cases was observed during the pandemic period, this difference did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.190).