In experiment 2, the mean expression of ptgs 1 was unchanged in gills of exposed fish (compared to SC fish), whereas the ptgs 2a and ptgs 2b genes trended towards up-regulation, with ptgs 2b being close to significance ( p values = 0.10, 0.12 and 0.07, respectively) (Suppl.
If any interactions were included in the selected model, but none of them was close to significance (p < 0.1), the model selection was rerun without interactions to avoid unnecessarily complicated model.
When comparing results from male patients with male controls, no significant differences were observed, although miR-206 was close to significance (3.4-fold upregulation, p = 0.1).
Comparison of male patients with male controls did not result in significant changes, although miR-206 was close to significance (3.4 fold upregulation, p = 0.1, Figure S5A ).
To determine independent prognostic factors Cox proportional hazards regression model was used with all factors that were significant (or close to significance P < 0,1) in the univariate analysis.
Although none of the items show significant differences at the classical level of p < .05, two items are close to significance ( p < .10), indicating a possible slight effect of the intervention on greater structural awareness of the gender problem and greater recognition of female capabilities: • The lack of women in positions of power is a structural problem ( p < .10). • Women have the objectivity needed for business decisions ( p < .10).
Partial eta squared effect sizes (η p 2 ) are reported as an indicator of effect size when the p ‐level was close to significance (i.e. p < 0.1 but p > 0.05) 46 .
As we can see, F13A1 (rs5985), ARMS2 (rs10490924), CFH (rs1061170) and VEGFA (rs3025040) are the only SNPs not showing significant ( p > 0.05) or close to significance ( p < 0.1) differences about their genotype distribution among control and study groups, or deviations from the H-W. 3.2.
Interestingly, after additional adjustment for T2D therapy in Model 2, the association was close to significance ( p < 0.10).
This modulation did not also differ as a function of coherence, although the three‐way interaction between coherence, visual area, and task was close to significance at p = .10.
Among the six plant hormones, the content of IAA showed significantly higher average values ( p < 0.05, independent-sample Student’s t -test) in all the GE hybrid seeds than that in the non-GE hybrid seeds, under both the dry ( Figure 7 A,B) and imbibed ( Figure 7 C,D) conditions, although dry seeds from the EP3–w1 F 5 hybrid lineage showed a close to significance ( p < 0.10).
The TT + TC + CC + CA + AA vrs TA and TT + CA vrs TA associations were close to significance (p < 0.10), and presented a relative risk of 3.13 and 2.99-fold higher chance of having cancer, respectively.
None of the other tested characteristics, including study arm (clinic or home), were close to significance in predicting preference class membership (p>0.1).
The same general pattern was observed in Chaica (Figure 2 c); with p ‐values estimated for HSD (honest significant difference) tests being close to significance ( p ‐value = .101 and .088, calculated between 1‐genotype and 4‐genotype and between 1‐genotype and 8‐genotype treatments, respectively).
While this was not statistically significant using a Fisher exact test, the p-value was close to significance (p=.105).
The fact that more false alarms (conscious reports of target presence when no target was actually presented) were committed when central cues were spatially predictive (12% in Hsu et al., 2011 , Experiment 1) than when they were not (6% in Hsu et al., 2011 , Experiment 1), together with the finding of significant differences in the general d′ between spatially predictive and non-predictive cues, and close to significance differences in response criterion [ t (13) = 1.64, p = 0.11], strongly suggests that participants may have adopted a stricter response criterion to report targets at the unattended vs. the attended location, especially when central cues were spatially predictive of target appearance (Hsu et al., 2011 ).
(In our study, the association between sICAM-1 and FMD came close to significance with a p-value = 0.11).
A main effect of Group was close to significance, F 2,47 = 2.29, P = 0.11, such that there was a trend for the between-sessions reduction in response latency to differ between groups (−54.83 vs. −4.78 vs. −2.73 ms).
This difference in activity level was also reported to be close to significance on D0 (P=0.11).
However, verbalization of psychological suffering and emotional eating at inclusion are close to significance (with P = 0.110 and P = 0.085, respectively) and should be carefully investigated in patients before surgery.
Notably, IL12B-specificmRNA was not significantly affected by inoculation (IL12A is not on the Genechip), although the direction of response was opposite in LS1 versus PS1 pigs, and was close to significance for shed-by-time interaction (p<0.11; q<0.15).
Student’s t-test analyses ( Table 2 ) revealed HF- vs .-LF differences only at 18.00 h ( p = .02), with differences at 30 min post-waking and at midnight being close to significance ( p = .11 and p = .07, respectively).
Moreover, the chi-square difference test across the equal and different parameters of the model was only close to significance (Δχ 2 = 2.54, p = 0.111).
This decrease was also seen in the final tumor weight after 4′-BR treatment, with a significant decrease seen in the Mel-PDX-01, and results close to significance in the TM01137 (not reached due to one large outlier; p value = 0.1150) ( Figure 6(C , E) ).
CXCL7 was overexpressed close to significance, 0.40 (0.00–7.85) vs 0.15 (0.01–7.88), P = 0.12.