“almost significant”

This difference was almost significant and the trauma history could be related to poorer response (p = 0.056, calculated by chi-square test).

No parameter was shown to be statistically significantly different between genders, although we observed an almost significant difference regarding birth weight (P = 0.056).

Finally, we found an almost significant association (p = 0.056) between ApoB goal and percentage change in CPV in values close to 60 mg/dL.

Another almost significant group*time interaction was found for PASE ( p = 0.056, F = 3.888, Cohen’s d = 0.66).

The result showed a significant interaction effect between group and time on demands ( F (3;1928) = 4.04, p = .007), and an almost significant interaction effect ( F (3;3;1917) = 2.52, p = .056) between group and time on decision authority.

However, portal fibrosis was seen to reduce almost significantly in Group A patients postoperatively ( P = 0.056), in Group B patients it showed a slight increase and in Group C patients the increase in postoperative fibrosis was almost significant ( P = 0.056).

However, the difference between the students’ frustration scores was almost significant (p=0.056).

For DU4475 cells, we observed a significant increase in rolling and an almost significant increase in tethering events ( P = 0.056).

This masks the fact that the groups were different (almost significant at p=0.056) on the GHS score at the pre-test, but not at the post-test (p=0.826), and that the app did only rebalance initial differences between the groups.

Nevertheless, the difference between CC8 and CC5 was almost significant ( p = 0.056; Figure 2G ).

There was an almost significant group difference in paranoia scores, F (3,496) = 2.53, p = 0.056, accounted for by the low experiential/high rational group scoring significantly lower than the high experiential/low rational group ( p = 0.007).

The difference in DISPL-ctx between the two groups was almost significant ( p = 0.056).

In the men currently treated with agalsidase, the correlation between lysoGb3 plasma levels and RRA was almost significant (Spearman’s test, r = − 0.34, p = 0.056, n = 33); the trend remained when focused on the classic phenotype alone (Spearman’s test, r = − 0.43, p = 0.055, n = 21) but not when focused on the non-classic phenotype (Spearman’s test, r = − 0.004, p = 0.99, n = 12).

The association with worries was almost significant ( p = .056), which bears mentioning because a recent study with cognitively normal memory clinic patients [ 33 ] and a community-based study [ 20 , 37 ] also reported an association of worries with amyloid pathology.

The HDL level between EPA + Nano- curcumin and EPA groups showed a difference that was almost significant ( p = 0.056).

Nevertheless, an almost significant decrease in Tff3 ( p = 0.056), recently described as a regulator of lipid metabolism [ 14 ], was observed ( Figure 4 ).

However, the interaction between perinatal diet and treatment was almost significant ( F 1 , 26 = 4 . 006 , p = 0 . 056 ).

The difference in perceived self-efficacy for the owner's weight was almost significant ( p = 0.056).

Regarding female offspring, two-way ANOVA indicated a main effect of prenatal diet [ F (3, 31) = 7.517, P < 0.05] and an almost significant effect of treatment [ F (3, 31) = 3.928, P = 0.056] on chocolate intake (Figure 3G ).

Weekly MCCC is significantly associated with lower frailty risk through the fixed-effect model (β = − 0.010; 95% CI: [− 0.014, − 0.006], P < 0.001), while this association is almost significant through the Cox model (HR = 0.86; 95% CI: [0.74, 1.00], P = 0.056).

This differences are almost significant (p = 0.0565).

There was no significant correlation between BMI and PC/LPC ratio, however, at 16 weeks of pregnancy, the negative correlation with BMI indicating increased LPC therefore increased inflammation was almost significant ( p = 0.0566).

We found an almost significant increase in the presence of extracellular lipid deposition and fibrous cap ( p = 0.0567 and p = 0.0502, respectively) in the HFFD group (vs.

The difference in the probability of EFS was almost significant between SRG and HRG (0.56 ± 0.04 vs. 0.47 ± 0.03; p = 0.0567).

Analysis of these three ERP components by considering the Sex factor revealed an influence of this variable on TF03SF1 (P408p), which showed Sex x Type of stimulus interaction (T WJt /c (1.0.62.3) = 4.45, p = 0.038, mean-squared error (MSe) = 6.01) and an almost significant Sex × Group interaction (T WJt /c (1.0.58.4) = 3.80, p = 0.0568, MSe = 65.90).