Barely Significant
← all phrases

“an overall trend”

4,872 sentences · 4,872 papers · 34,210 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.2

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

In the literature

Numerically, scenarios of flows among the 27 countries multiply the initial origin-destination rates by factors consisting of two components: an overall trend (a constant level in the Low scenario, mobility increase by 0.5% yearly in the Base scenario and by 1% in the High one) and temporal deviations resulting from the labour market policies discussed above. ‘External’ migration scenarios are quantified using an exponential extrapolation from the 2002 values to the target ones, presented in Table 1 .
Based on these thresholds, the pools of total microtubule tracks in RPEp53 −/− , RPEp53 −/− SAS6 −/− , and RPEp53 −/− STIL −/− cells were classified into two pairs of subgroups, namely, “slow (red)” versus “fast (blue)” and “short-lived (yellow)” versus “long-lived (green).” In the two types of acentrosomal cells, the population of growing microtubules with slow and short-lived growth was found to be increased, which resulted in an overall trend of microtubule growth in these cells when an intact centrosome was absent ( Fig 2D ).
With the increase in the N application rate, the changing trends of grain filling parameters of SGs and IGs of DP128 are as follows: The grain weight with the maximum grain filling rate ( W max ), the G max , and the G mean exhibited an overall trend of initially increasing and subsequently decreasing.
Primary t(8;21)-negative AML cells showed an overall trend of being less sensitive to palbociclib compared with t(8;21)-positive AML ( Figures 7 A and S7 D), although there was some heterogeneity in response concomitant with reported sensitivity in other AML subtypes ( Placke et al., 2014 , Uras et al., 2016 , van der Linden et al., 2015 ).
For the Center–location object, there was no effect of condition on difference scores (Social: M = 0.073, SD = 0.590, Nonsocial: M = −0.070, SD = 0.582; see Figure 3 ), but there was an overall trend for the difference in looking from the pre- to postcounting phase to increase over the trials (β = 0.063, SE = 0.033, t = 1.898; Model Comparison X 2 (1) = 3.632, p = .057).