Barely Significant
← all phrases

“a weak trend”

1,405 sentences · 1,405 papers · 1,881 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

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

In the literature

There was a weak trend for correlation ( R 2 =0.189, p value 0.0045) between EOT HBV RNA levels and anti-HBc IgG levels, mainly due to 7 of 8 patients with EOT HBV RNA levels <LLOQ (detectable or TND) also having low anti-HBc IgG levels (Supplemental Figure S4, http://links.lww.com/HC9/B907 ).
While we found no effect of optical stimulation of DRN DAT terminals on locomotion or time in center in the OFT ( Figure 3—figure supplement 1 ), we found stimulation of DRN DAT terminals in the BNST (but not in the CeA or BLP) resulted in a weak trend toward increased time spent in the open arm of the EPM ( Figure 3A–C ), which can be interpreted as exploratory behavior linked with a vigilant state ( Rodgers and Dalvi, 1997 ).
Variation of Hemodynamic Shear in Embryonic and Fetal Great Vessels with Age and Vascular Size The main finding of the current study is that wall shear stresses and wall shear rates had a weak trend with developmental age and vascular sizes, or no statistically significant trends at all; this is unlike centerline flow velocities, which had strong correlations with developmental age and vascular sizes, and unlike vascular sizes, which had strong correlation with developmental age.
After quantification by high-resolution sector field inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HR-SF-ICP-MS), no statistically significant differences were detected in blood metal levels in SAC receiving the probiotic or milk control, although we noted that there was a weak trend of reduced blood levels of lead and arsenic ( Table 4 ).
When CD40 (rs6074022) results were stratified by sex, there was a weak trend towards a stronger effect in males than females (coefficients −3.1247 and −1.1795 respectively), and a weak trend towards a stronger effect in HLA-DR15 negative individuals than HLA-DR15 positive individuals (coefficients −1.8818, and −0.9834 respectively), but these trends were not significant (interaction p-values 0.475 and 0.224, respectively) ( Table 4 ).