“close to being significant”

The AUC for the appetite ratings were not different between breakfasts, however differences in the AUC for the combined satiety index between breakfasts were close to being significant (AUC CSI for G-Breakfast: 953.69 ± 36.52; AUC CSI for C-Breakfast: 894.77 ± 37.27; p = 0.06). 3.3.

A statistically significant difference in CH, CRF, and IOPg was noted, as well as a tendency for a change in IOPcc as well which was close to being significant ( p =0.06).

However, the CRISPRi activity of C-KRAB( Pcsk9 ) was close to being significant (p = 0.06) when compared to SadCas9.

The GPA score was close to being significant (HR = 0.59 p = 0.06).

The interaction between beetle and mite species came close to being significant ( p = .06) and explained a substantial amount of the total variation in beetle fitness (partial η 2 = 0.10, see also Table S1 ).

67 In the present analysis the OR (1.57) for current smokers was close to being significant ( P = .06) regarding the number of root-filled teeth.

Maybe the low sample size contributed to the insignificant difference in EEG index 1 and 2 across the different game difficulty levels, as EEG index 1 was close to being significant at p = 0.060.

As for the cells in the nearby buffer, the NO showed the same trend as observed for its effect on the surface biofilm, except when NO was at the flux of 0.3, it increased the number of dispersed cells in buffer than biofilm naturally dispersed (87%) and the difference was close to being significant ( p = 0.06).

However, the BW of the negative control group (62.4 ± 10.4) was significantly lower ( p = 0.04) than that of the GH and was close to being significant ( p = 0.06) compared to the GNH.

The difference between males and females was close to being significant (χ 2 = 3.48; p = 0.06).

This is not the case; generally results are quite consistent. The difference between the year with the strongest effect (1987) and the weakest (1988) is just close to being significant (p = 0.06; Table 3).

On the contrary, for infant survival, an opposite tendency was observed where the inbreeding load was increased and this increase was very close to being significant ( p = 0.06).

In the multiple regression investigating the interaction between size and stratigraphic layer, the full-reduced model comparison indicated that the interaction was very close to being significant (F = 3.578, P = 0.06) ( Table 4 ).

The difference in social QoL between groups was close to being significant ( p = 0.06).

Interestingly, for all of these variables, significant increases were shown to occur or were very close to being significant (diastolic blood pressure; p = 0.06) for only group B, the whey protein group, while no such changes were seen in group A, the Aminogen® + whey protein group.

Concerning LOC domain score, improvements were associated with longer diabetes duration ( P = 0.0084) and younger age ( P < 0.0001) for Chance and total number of SMBG measurements ( P = 0.0036) for Internal, with the intervention group close to being significant ( P = 0.06).

11 , 12 , 14 , 15 Two COVID‐19 severity results worth discussing are blood type O vs AB, which was significant ( p = .008), and secretor status, which was close to being significant ( p = .06).

However, the p values for the ecoregion were close to being significant, both in the SLR and LBR (p = 0.06).

It is worth noting that the correlation between GPx activity and glucose levels was close to being significant (r = 0.359, p = 0.06).

[ 51 ], the association between SRSF2 mutations and transfusion requirement was close to being significant ( p = 0.06).

In the low level, although there were no statistically significant differences, it presented a value very close to being significant ( p = 0.06), finding an increase from 3.00 (±0.71) to 10.40 (±2.07).

In our study, maternal Vit-D3 levels were not significantly correlated with age but were close to being significant (R=0.131; P =0.062).

None of these factors explained the final outcome of minimally adequate treatment, but the p -value for the association between marital status and minimally adequate treatment was close to being significant (OR 0.36, CI 0.12–1.05, P = 0.062) and was significant when we studied the most intensive treatment episode (OR 0.33, CI 0.11–0.99, P = 0.048) (Table 7 and Additional file 5 ).

Excluding the control variables for the states, with the exception of the percentage of public assistance (which is close to being significant, p = 0.062), all variables were significant at p < 0.05 ( Table S2 ).

In this sense, the control group did not show statistically significant differences in any of the variables between the pre-test and the post-test; only personal responsibility was close to being significant ( p = 0.063), and all values of the d-Cohen effect were <0.2.