“a numerical trend”

The DBD, which contains the principal DNA-binding apparatus essential for RAD51-mediated HR, demonstrated a numerical trend toward higher representation in HR+/HER2− (30.8%, 16/52) than TNBC (17.6%, 3/17; OR = 0.48, raw p = 0.36; and FDR-adjusted p = 1.00); however, this did not reach statistical significance.

Similar to the results of the overall cohort, the allogeneic HCT subgroup demonstrated no difference in composite bleeding events or VTE events between the pre-VPP and post-VPP groups, though there was a numerical trend towards more bleeding events (18 (21.4%) vs. 24 (27.3%), p = 0.37) and less VTE events in the post-VPP group (8 (9.5%) vs. 4 (4.5%), p = 0.24) (Tables S 1 , S 2 ).

Although not statistically significant, the normal group showed a numerical trend toward benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.30–1.61, p = 0.396), whereas this trend was not observed in patients with presarcopenia (HR 1.70, 95% CI 0.40–7.26, p = 0.475).

PAC use was not significantly associated with survival in this study, despite a numerical trend toward better outcome (p=0.400, Table 5 , Figure S4 ).

While few studies have been published regarding the impact of ARID2 mutations in NSCLC, it is worth noting that a composite analysis of five clinical cohorts treated with ICI at MSKCC ( n = 2272) showed a numerical trend towards improved PFS (8.3 vs. 4.1 months, HR = 0.79, p = 0.4; n = 349) and OS (36 vs. 11 months, HR = 0.60, p = 0.097; n = 344) when comparing mutated to wild‐type ARID2 cases, but the differences did not reach statistical significance [ 13 ].

NGAL showed a numerical trend to higher values in IRD compared to NIRD without reaching statistical significance (14 896 pg/ml vs. 11 977 pg/ml, p = 0.41; Figure 2 ).

Because there was a numerical trend for EBF to be greater for FIN, when calculated to a similar EBF, AFBW was not different ( P = 0.42) between REC and FIN.

the “lower 50%”, although there was a numerical trend towards longer OS with sunitinib-axitinib (median OS: 18.1 vs. 16.0 months; HR: 0.86 [0.56–1.29]; p = 0.462).

No robust increase in T RM CD8 + T cells was detected >35 days after the last treatment, although a numerical trend toward higher counts was observed (≤35 days: 3.7 cells/mm 2 vs >35 days: 8.45 cells/mm 2 ; p = 0.5) ( Figure 2C ).

In keeping with this, a numerical trend was evident for reduced LV function in the NR cohort; however, this did not reach statistical importance (p=0.502).

In keeping with this, a numerical trend was evident for the higher Killip class in the NR group; however, this did not reach statistical importance (p = 0.502).

In the analysis which accounted for all these four prognostic factors, there was a numerical trend in favor of rIX-FP compared to rFIXFc for total ABR (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32, 1.75; P = 0.5095) and AjBR (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.37, 1.82; P = 0.6178), and AsBR (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22, 0.82; P = 0.0107) was significantly lower in subjects treated with rIX-FP versus rFIXFc (Table 3 ).

While there was a numerical trend towards OS benefit with olaparib (median OS 19.3 months versus 17.1 months), this was not statistically significant (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.66–1.23; p = 0.513) [ 6 ].

2C ), but a numerical trend was observed in the PD-L1 ≥50% subgroup (Kruskal–Wallis P value = 0.52).

collected data from 5,480 patients in 45 randomised clinical trials and also carried out a meta-analysis of the adverse events.[ 67 ] No signals were seen for MI (data from 25 studies, RR 0.789, 95% CI [0.522–1.185], p=0.3), ventricular arrhythmias (data from nine studies, RR 0.885, 95% CI [0.611–1.281], p=0.5) or supraventricular arrhythmias (data from 19 studies, RR 1.005, 95% CI [0.782–1.291], p=0.9), but a numerical trend was seen for hypotension (data from 22 studies, RR 1.389, 95% CI [0.996–1.936], p=0.53).

No signals were seen for MI [data from 25 studies, RR 0.789, 95% CI (0.522–1.185), P = 0.3], ventricular arrhythmias [data from 9 studies, RR 0.885, 95% CI (0.611–1.281), P = 0.5], or supraventricular arrhythmias [data from 19 studies, RR 1.005, 95% CI (0.782–1.291), P = 0.9], but a numerical trend was seen for hypotension [data from 22 studies, RR 1.389, 95% CI (0.996–1.936), P = 0.53].

− 4.4%; p = 0.042), although only a numerical trend for patients with microalbuminuria (≥ 30 to < 300 mg/g) in favor of lixisenatide was observed (− 16.2 vs. − 4.7; p = 0.563; data on file).

However, despite a numerical trend whereby the older cows produced a greater number of vocalizations, no significant differences between parity orders were detected ( p = 0.580; SEM = 17.86; Figure 7 b). 4.

Again, in patients with TNBC, there was a numerical trend towards a possible association between DTC-persistence and decreased pCR rate (25.0% vs. 50.0%; 25% difference in pCR; p = 0.585, Fig. 4 ).

Furthermore, we observed a numerical trend towards lower response rates and objective response rates in the CPS high group compared to the CPS low group ( P =0.64, Fisher exact test, Figure S6 A ; P =0.48, Fisher exact test, Figure S6 B ).

Although there was a numerical trend across QRS area tertiles, this was not statistically significant ( P = .71 and P = .11 for T2 vs T1 and T3 vs T1, respectively), and there was no significant linear trend across tertiles ( P = .10).

While the visual model could reproduce participants’ trial-by-trial biases, it did not reproduce the effect of video type (overestimation of duration for city scenes) despite a numerical trend in the predicted direction, M±SD diff = 0.19 ±13.96, 95%CI = [-0.94, 1.33], t 2329 = 0.33, p = 0.739, d = 0.01 ( S2F Fig ).

Neither baseline IFNγ signature nor TMB levels were significantly different between patients with pathologic response and subsequent disease recurrence versus those without, despite a numerical trend towards a lower TMB level in the recurrence group at baseline (median IFNγ 0.2855 versus 0.2034, p = 0.876, and median TMB 346.5 versus 484, p = 0.760, respectively) [Fig. 1b ].

Compared with placebo, gilteritinib treatment showed a numerical trend of improvement in RFS (8.2 months) but this was not statistically significant (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.41–1.34; p = .16), and the primary objective was not met.

9 Intriguingly, some of the LABA/LAMA FDCs showed a numerical trend in protecting against cardiovascular SAEs, whereas other combinations showed a signal in increasing the risk of cardiovascular SAEs. 9 The frequencies of SAEs and deaths in RCTs of LABA/LAMA FDCs are low.