“a statistical trend”

Amyloid-β protein precursor (AβPP) was increased by 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T caused a statistical trend (0.05 < p<0.10) increase in Aβ.

In the subliminal condition, the N1 enhancement for naked OSS compared to naked SSS only showed a statistical trend towards significance (t(18) = −1.39, p >.1).

If a factor was showed evidence of a statistical trend at p < 0.1 in the univariate models, the variable was included in the multivariate, age-adjusted model.

We demonstrated by sensitivity analyses that by removing these two studies only a statistical trend (p < 0.1) of the effect of hypnosis/guided imagery on pain at final treatment was detectable.

A probability (p) value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant, whereas differences were considered to show a statistical trend when 0.05<p<0.10.

A statistical trend was defined as 0.05 > p -value < 0.1.

Statistical significance was considered if P ≤ .05, and a statistical trend was assumed if 0.05 < P < .10.

The results of the statistical analysis were considered significant if p < 0.05 and insignificant if a statistical trend ( p < 0.1) was observed.

At 12 months, promoters in Group 3 also displayed mostly better PROM scores than detractors, however, these differences were only significant for very few PROM scores (Tables 5 and 6 : Pain intensity at 12 months), while a slightly higher number showed a statistical trend (0.05 < p < 0.1), e.g.

All factors which reached statistical significance ( P ≤ 0.05) or a statistical trend ( P ≤ 0.1) were subsequently included in combination.

Unhealthy dietary habits such as frequent consumption of carbonated drinks and ultra-processed pastries had a negative impact on Physical QoL, Physical role, General QoL and Physical component ( p < 0.05), with a statistical trend in the Pain category ( p < 0.10).

Statistical significance was declared at P < 0.05, and a statistical trend was speculated at 0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10.

The relationship between decline in eye fixation and outcome becomes a statistical trend by 2–9 months ( P = 0.100), and is statistically significant thereafter.

A statistical trend was considered for P < 0.10.

There was a statistical trend for increased prevalence of moderate-severe periodontitis with increasing age (Wald p-value = 0.1).

Despite this, there was a statistical trend ( p < 0.1) towards a lower mortality rate in the trauma surgery patient group compared to patients treated in the anesthesiology intensive care before matched-pair analysis.

The result of a statistical test was considered significant for p < 0.05, and a statistical trend was defined as p < 0.1.

Consecutively, parameters reaching a statistical trend in univariate analysis (that is, P < 0.1) were included into the multivariate models.

Effects were considered significant when P ≤ 0.050 and a statistical trend when P ≤ 0.100.

We also found a statistical trend (p<0.10) suggesting that having less than high school education was independently associated with failure to return for the seven-day clinic visit.

Parameters showing a statistical trend (defined as p < 0.1) in the univariable analysis were entered in multivariable GEE models; stepwise backward variable selection was used to derive a parsimonious model.

This finding showed a statistical trend (p < 0.1) in the two highest doses.

The MAR results were not statistically significant, while the VIR index showed a statistical trend for the relation between condition and bacteria ( p = 0.10), since the isolates from the positive control and from the RMS supplemented with 2.5% biochar had a significantly lower VIR index than those from the RMS supplemented with 5% and 10% biochar.

One factor demonstrated a statistical trend (0.05< P <0.10): chronic kidney disease (yes vs. no; P = 0.081).

2B might suggest that the BDNF levels were lower in the aged rats, the difference between young and old animals was not statistically significant, and did not even show a statistical trend ( P > 0.1).