“a trend toward significance”

And though there was a trend toward significance when comparing the chance of a good or excellent outcome with skeletal maturity versus curve flexibility or curve flexibility versus curve magnitude as single risk factors, neither achieved significance.

Statistical significance was accepted at p less or equal than 0.050, and a trend toward significance was detected for p values ranging from 0.051 to 0.100.

However, there is a trend toward significance in the comparisons of “Decision Tree vs.

On the contrary, the association of high LDL‐C and MACE was not confirmed even though a trend toward significance was observed.

Furthermore, controlling for fracture location in addition to the ACCI and gender, we found a significant increase in 1-year male mortality for IT fractures and a trend toward significance for femoral neck fractures.

Although we did not conduct a subgroup analysis, individual studies with multifactorial interventions showed a trend toward significance as compared to single component interventions.

For fasting insulin we identified 13 markers where the CNV effect showed a trend toward significance ( P CNV ≤9*10 −4 ).

In Study 3, the 2 groups did not have the same sex ratio and a Pearson’s Chi-squared test showed a trend toward significance.

This type of spin included 1) not reporting adverse events or lack of focus on harms (e.g., no warning on important safety issues), 2) selective reporting of outcomes favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment (e.g., statistically significant results for efficacy outcomes or statistically non-significant results for harm outcomes), 3) misleading reporting of study design, 4) use of linguistic spin or “hype” (i.e., rhetorical manipulations to convince the readers of the beneficial effect of the treatment such as “excellent” results, “encouraging” outcome s , “a trend toward significance”), 5) no consideration of limitations, and 6) selective citation of other studies.

There was also a trend toward significance with students who participated in the elective feeling more at ease taking a personal and medical history from foreign-born patients than elective non-participants (U, A p = 0.06).

Although the difference between the actuarial and consensus-based tools was not statistically significant, a trend toward significance was observed.

Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), and a P value of < 0.05 was considered significant; P < 0.1 indicated a trend toward significance.

Echocardiographic evaluation revealed higher sPAP values in the primary endpoint group ( p = 0.022), while LV EF ( p = 0.079) and left atrial volume ( p = 0.076) demonstrated a trend toward significance but did not meet the threshold.

Additionally, a trend toward significance was observed for oxygen flow >15 L/min and procalcitonin levels, though these did not reach conventional statistical significance.

Additionally, the type of treatment but not CPT classification was associated with a favorable outcome, while the BCLC score showed a trend toward significance.

Although these analyses revealed some differences, such as certain indicators showing a shift from significance to a trend toward significance, the main conclusion of this study—namely, the primary differences between the healthy control group and the StD subtypes—was largely maintained.

We also identified a correlation between baseline NfL levels, worse ECOG, and biological markers of endothelial inflammation, as assessed by the mEASIX score and LDH, with a trend toward significance also observed for CRP.

4a , right graph, unpaired t test) and higher values of MPP-Aβ40 (129.40 ± 4.26 pg/ml) than CN– subjects (118.80 ± 2.24 pg/ml) ( P = 0.08, a trend toward significance; Fig. 4a , middle graph, unpaired t test).

Differences were deemed significant if P ≤ 0.05, and 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10, would indicate a trend toward significance.

One-tailed paired t-tests to test preregistered hypotheses showed a significantly greater arousal level for the asynchronous than the synchronous condition for the third person perspective [t(41) = −2.21, p- uncorrected = 0.016, d = −0.34], but only a trend toward significance for the first-person perspective [t(41) = −1.54, p- uncorrected = 0.066, d = −0.24].

UPDRS 2.2 ratings showed a trend toward significance but were still statistically non-significant.

37.0%, P = 0.051), suggesting a trend toward significance.

Among 70 patients in the final analysis, sublaminar decompression patients demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in PROMIS PF scores at the 2-week, 4-week, 3-month, and 6-month intervals, with statistical significance or a trend toward significance at each of these time points.

However, post hoc analysis of the median threshold dose of sesame protein revealed that there was no difference between group 1 and group 2 ( P adj = 1.00) and only a trend toward significance between group 1 and group 3 ( P adj = .085) and group 2 and group 3 ( P adj = .072).

Exact P values are displayed in the legend when 0.13 > P ≥ 0.05 to illustrate a trend toward significance.