“close to significance”

In the learning cooperation ability dimension, the group × time interaction effect was significant ( F 2,390 =5.17; P =.01), and the main effect of time was close to significance ( P =.06).

Analyses showed a group effect [ F (1,45) = 27.64, p = 0.000], as WL were higher for children with dyslexia than for children without dyslexia (Estimate = 269, SE = 51) and the morphological condition was close to significance [ F (2,33) = 3.02, p = 0.06].

Association of TIM-3 and LGALS9 Polymorphisms with Clinical Features of ccRCC Patients After stratification by gender, we found that, similarly to the relation observed in the whole ccRCC group, the genotype distribution of rs4794976 differed between patients and controls ( Table 2 ), and this difference was close to significance ( p = 0.06) in female patients.

However, group 4 had a 2 hours IPC and did not achieved significantly better concentrations than group 1 (1 hour IPC); the difference was close to significance (p = 0.06), but it can not explain a 3-fold increase in concentration.

For the item "sensitive", the result is close to significance (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.06).

Weight was a significant positive predictor in SA-BMC models at the total hip and femoral shaft ( P =0.006 and 0.001, respectively), and was close to significance at the femoral neck ( P =0.06) and trochanter ( P =0.07).

Those in the lowest height percentile group did not have a lower risk of early menarche than those in the mid-range although the p -value was close to significance (HR: 0.4, P <0.06).

From 18 to 48 h, cell growth is significantly reduced in ncr1 Δ cyb5 Δ relative to wild-type and ncr1 Δ ( P < 0.05 ) and close to significance ( P = 0.06 ) relative to cyb5 Δ.

The interaction between openness with family/friends and HIV partner disclosure was close to significance ( p = 0.06).

When testing the ROIs from adults in children, after correcting for multiple comparisons across the 14 ROIs, only the posterior cingulate was significant (p = 0.049), though two clusters were close to significance, both with p = 0.06: one positive in the left precentral gyrus (shown in Figure 3C ), and one negative in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

PIM and DDI were not evidenced as risk factors but PIM–DDI were close to significance (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.00–1.57, p = 0.060). 3.2.2.

Investigating the ideal timepoint for discrimination of response by building the model with an increasing number of fractions resulted in no clear optimum but was close to significance at five (β 3 = 0.076 (CI [-0.001,0.153], p = 0.06)) and ten fractions (β 3 = 0.034 (CI [0.000,0.068], p = 0.05)), and then stabilised after around thirteen fractions ( Fig. 4A ).

In this present study, we compare the LGE (+) and LGE (-) patients, and find that LGE (+) group have lower LVEF, the p value of LVEF is close to significance (P = 0.06).

Finally, the two-way interaction between the three factors was close to significance [ F (16, 208) = 1.63, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.021], and the decomposition of this interaction with Bonferroni correction showed that applying TMS over the parietal cortex at 240 ms made participants significantly less efficient when asked to lie (0.013 ± 0.005 ms) than when stimulation was applied at 0 ms (0.011 ± 0.002 ms, p = 0.05), mirroring the effect seen with RT alone.

The interaction Type x Session was close to significance, F (1,51) = 3.65, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.07, which might indicate that the decision time effect of repetitions vs. switches was attenuated in the second session.

There was a negative significant correlation between PAF‐AH activity and Psa level (r = −0.402; p = 0.018) and a positive correlation between PAF‐AH activity and MDA level that was close to significance (r = 0.326, p = 0.06).

In our study, while the association between financial burden and DLQI was close to significance (p = 0.06), the statistically insignificant association between worry and DLQI (p = 0.22) aligns with Jamil et al.'s [ 15 ] findings, suggesting variability in how financial strain and worry directly influence the QoL.

However, months since diagnosis was close to significance ( P =.06).

Statistical significance was lost when the model was adjusted for confounding factors, although in social skills it was close to significance ( p = 0.06).

Although the p -values were close to significance, there was no statistical difference in the eGFR between the two cohorts ( p = 0.060), or when only the preterm babies from the cohorts were compared ( p = 0.068).

There was a difference between baseline and 8-weeks close to significance [ t (29) = −1.95, p = 0.06, 95% CI (−3.95, 0.09), d = 0.35, 95% CI (−0.01, 0.72)].

(orchardgrass), associated with the control treatment, was close to significance (P = 0.06).

Overall, no difference was found between the four groups of parents ( P = 0.28) although the association between chromosomal malformations and older fathers was close to significance ( P = 0.06).

Similarly, daily ASA use with PD-L1 inhibitors showed a trend toward achieving CR but only with a probability close to significance (AOR = 1.85, 95% CI 0.99-3.46, p = 0.06).

Furthermore, in a multivariate analysis adjusted for participants' age, the finding of higher serum NfL levels in patients with IgG4 Caspr1 AN than in healthy controls remained close to significance ( p = 0.0609).