Barely Significant
← all phrases

“a positive trend”

11,006 sentences · 11,006 papers · 20,836 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

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

In the literature

a positive trendp = 0.0450.9× alphagold
Importantly, the effect of the number of spontaneous events was also strongly statistically significant ( p < 0.0001) with a positive trend ( p = 0.045) in separate experiments in which we first measured AP-evoked activity and afterward measured spontaneous activity (inverse sequence; Supplementary Figures 4A, B ), ruling out effects of e.g., activity run-down and fluorescence bleaching.
a positive trendP -value = 0.0460.9× alphagold
a decreasing trendP -value = 0.091.8× alphagold
In addition, we observed position effects: (i) in the Confounded experiment, a positive trend was observed in Chip 2 ( R 2 ∼ 0.25, P -value = 0.046); (ii) in the Randomized experiment, a decreasing trend across positions was observed in both chips ( R 2 ∼ 0.17, P -value = 0.09).
a positive trendP = 0.0460.9× alphagold
Although the initial results, published in 2002, indicated a positive trend for PORT in 5-year overall survival (67% vs. 58%, P = 0.046), this was not confirmed upon updating the data for reanalysis in the PORT meta-analysis ( 15 ).
a positive trendp ‐value = 0.0470.9× alphagold
Then, we computed F ST 's and performed a Mantel test that resulted in a positive trend in the correlation (Mantel's r = 0.4173, p ‐value = 0.047; Figure 3 ) between geographical and genetic distance, even though that p ‐values varied around 0.05 depending on the permutation. 3.4 Genetic‐Environment Association ( GEA ) Analyses A PCA was conducted on the allele frequencies to identify latent factors within the populations and to assess the potential influence of population structure.
a positive trendp = 0.0491.0× alphagold
For provinces in Korea, there was no positive trend between the proportion of dogs that tested positive and the recorded burden of human disease (Spearman’s r = 0.261, p = 0.469), whereas there was a positive trend between the proportion of cats that tested positive and the recorded burden of human disease (Spearman’s r = 0.649, p = 0.049) ( Figure 2 ). 4.