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 = 0.0631.3× alpha
Results Significant effects of isolation measures–either Euclidean distance or resistance distance or both–on Jaccard similarity were found for all species groups, except for species with aquatic dispersal where resistance distance, however, was close to significance level (p = 0.063; Table 1 ; detailed model output is given in S5 Table ).
close to significancep = 0.06381.3× alpha
At the same time, the difference close to significance was observed for extracellular water content ( p = 0.0638), as lower extracellular water content (median of 46.4%) was observed for women characterized by carbohydrate content higher than 50% of the energy value of the diet, than for women characterized by carbohydrate content lower than 50% of the energy value of the diet (median of 47.1%). 4.
close to significancep = 0.0641.3× alpha
However, a correlative pair-wise analysis (Pearson’s r ) between the measures of Deambulation “event % time” and craving scores at post VR assessment timepoints, showed a significant inverse correlation with craving scores for basal (basal post; r = − 0.50, p < 0.01) and neutral (neutral post; r = − 0.4731, p = 0.012) and a close to significance trend for food (cue post; r = − 0.36, p = 0.064) in the VR-EE but not in the VR-NoEE group (Fig. 5 ).
close to significancep = 0.0641.3× alpha
A significant association was observed between maternal vitamin B12 levels in the highest quintile (≥81th percentile) and offspring childhood autism (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.06–2.41, p = 0.026) and the association was close to significance in the lowest quintile (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 0.98–2.26, p = 0.064), relative to the third quintile ( Figure 1 ).
close to significancep = 0.0641.3× alpha
When comparing contextualized models with one another, statistical significance tests do not provide any p -value below 0.05, indicating that no reliable difference among the performances of these models exist; nevertheless, it should be noticed that BERT large is not only the model showing the best average results, but also the only model to get close to significance against other contextualized models (against BERT base: p = 0.064; against ELMO: p = 0.088; against LUKE large and base: p = 0.132), while the p-values for comparisons involving the other contextualized models are well above 0.3.