“a trend toward significance”

The decreasing trend across the CLD groups was statistically significant by the Jonckheere‐Terpstra test in four domains—FA, SS, AC, and WO, with a trend toward significance for AS.

Values of 0.01<p≤0.05 were considered as a trend toward significance.

For left targets, there was no significant difference between C.F.'s mean percentage of failed stop (M = 44%) and his controls (M = 55%, SD = 6%; t (10) = −1.755, p = 0.055), although we did find a trend toward significance.

No significant relationship was found between mortality and gender (P = 0.58), history of hypertension, diabetes, smoking, or alcohol consumption (P > 0.05), although hypertension showed a trend toward significance.

found no significant difference in the Iranian population (p = 0.06), but concluded that a trend toward significance could be found [ 58 ].

Since some studies were underpowered, the findings were not statistically significant, although many of them displayed a trend toward significance.

The NOAF group had a trend toward significance of being older than the control group and having a higher occurrence of obesity.

A mean severity score of 2.93 for dental caries and 3.05 for periodontal problems is associated with spicy food consumption, as indicated by a significant p-value of 0.07, suggesting a trend toward significance but not reaching conventional levels.

We found a similar Control *Group interaction for the cHIP, when we compared PTSD+ with PTSD−, t (99) = −3.23, p FDR = 0.006, Pp = 1, 95% CI [−1.20, −0.29], and a trend toward significance when we compared PTSD+ with the nonexposed group, t (125) = −1.62, p FDR = 0.071, Pp = 0.995, 95% CI [−0.73, 0.07].

A p-value <0.05 was considered significant, and p-values 0.05 to 0.10 were considered to indicate a trend toward significance.

Although the statistically significant association of nodal status and treatment duration with EFS was lost on multivariable analysis, there was a trend toward significance with P -values in the .06 to .07 range, which suggests that this lack of significance may be secondary to limited power.

P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, while P < 0.10 was interpreted as indicating a trend toward significance.

P < 0.05 was taken to indicate significant differences according to treatment, and 0.05 < P < 0.1 was considered to indicate a trend toward significance.

There was a trend toward significance in the differences between those who used the hood fan and those that did not in mean, median and percent of time at moderately high PM 2.5 levels.

In the final multivariable modeling, adjusted for correctional facility, older age maintained a significant association, site of HIV diagnosis and site of ART initiation maintained a trend toward significance, and duration of incarceration lost significance and was dropped from the model (Table 3 ).

A negative correlation between active β-catenin levels and NSC proliferation results obtained using xCELLigence showed a trend toward significance (Supplementary Table 6).

The volume of the DMN significantly contributes to regression, and glucose metabolism in the DMN shows a trend toward significance.

Statistical differences were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05, and 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10 was viewed as a trend toward significance.

These included the DC marker CD40, and Th2 chemokine CCL17, with a trend toward significance (FDR < 0.1) for macrophage/DC markers (CD163, CLEC10A), Th2 chemokine CCL13, and Th1/Th2 chemokine CCL3 ( Figure 1 , Table S1 ).

However, composite hospitalizations 11 , 25 , 27 , 35 due to cardiovascular events, heart failure, or heart failure exacerbations were not reduced by tafamidis compared with placebo, although there was a trend toward significance ( Figure 5 ).

A trend toward significance was also observed for a lower proportion of patients with moderate to marked hyperemia (Power Doppler grade 2 and 3) upon rituximab (5/32, 15.6% vs. 15/44, 34.1%, P = 0.072).

There was also a trend toward significance indicating a larger defect size in the reoperation group ( Table 1 ), which would suggest that cartilage defects may increase in size if inadequately addressed at the index procedure.

Levels T5 ( p = 0.056) and T8 ( p = 0.075) showed a trend toward significance but did not reach the 0.05 threshold.

Taking into account the impairment in the recognition of each emotion, we only found a trend toward significance in error rates on fear recognition.

Uncorrected p-values < 0.05 (nominally significant findings) were reported as showing a trend toward significance.