Barely Significant
← all phrases

“close to significance”

2,131 sentences · 2,131 papers · 2,937 search hits before verification

In the literature

close to significancep -value = 0.05861.2× alpha
The calculated values for PCR/BDG were close to significance (Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared = 3. 5756, df = 1, p -value = 0.0586), but not for PCR/GM (Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared = 2.2131, df = 1, p -value = 0.1368).
close to significancep = 0.05871.2× alpha
When the recipient groups were compared, those that received Neumifil had consistently lower clinical scores than those receiving the vehicle ( Figure 2 c), reaching significance 7.4 days post-challenge ( p = 0.0117) and close to significance at 9 days post-challenge ( p = 0.0587).
close to significancep = 0.0591.2× alpha
As the same term was close to significance for state 1 with opposite sign ( t 6 = − 2.32, p = 0.059, Cohen’s d = − 0.55 ± 0.87), we probed the difference between state 1 and 3 counts (Counts 3 − Counts 1 ) in a follow-up analysis: the interaction remained significant ( t 6 = 4.6, p = 0.004, Cohen’s d = 1.08 ± 0.92), indicating that the more state 3 is expressed over state 1, the better the recovery, in a way that also depends on the MR signature.
close to significancep = 0.0591.2× alpha
While high-risk level did not significantly predict PHQ-9 changes, the p-value was close to significance (beta = −1.92, 95% CI [−3.91, 0.07], t(73) = −1.92, p = 0.059; Std. beta = −0.43, 95% CI [−0.87, 0.02]).
close to significancep -value = 0.0591.2× alpha
This difference was maintained after metamorphosis, such that while gut telomeres were not significantly shorter in adult frogs than they were immediately after metamorphosis (though the p -value was close to significance so perhaps a higher sample size would have given more power here, Tukey-test p -value = 0.059), they were still longer than in larval stages (all Tukey-test p -values < 0.002).
close to significancep = 0.0591.2× alpha
Two pairwise comparisons were found to be significant, namely, those involving scops owls and little owls (R = 0.402, p = 0.004), and scops owls and tawny owls (R = 0.338, p = 0.002); the comparison between scops owls and barn owls was close to significance (R = 0.162, p = 0.059).