“close to significance”

P -values for genotype differences are shown in figures when significant or close to significance.

In the multivariate model the variables that resulted significant at the univariate analyses and those close to significance and clinically meaningful were included.

A moderate to high diabetes stigmatization score was not associated with gender, though it was close to significance for the BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 group (2.26 [0.99, 5.13]).

However, on univariate binary logistic regression, none of those variables was close to significance to enter in a model predicting all-cause mortality. 3.4.

It is, however, noteworthy that the Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons between younger and middle-aged ( p = .051), younger and older ( p = .093), and middle-aged and older ( p = 1) are only close to significance, if at all.

For this animal, the ROI gradient tests revealed that seven of the ROIs had significant gradients, two may have been close to significance (those representing fields RT and RTM) and all, but one (of field MM), were in the predicted direction (see Figure 6 D and 6 E).

Logistic regression analysis and odds ratio (OR) was used to predict differences in blood pressure categories defined by mitochondrial groups J non-J and T non-T and multiple models were constructed and analysed to include variables significantly different or close to significance in t test or mwu or other analyses.

At the genomic level, the association of BRCA1/2 mutations with platinum response was close to significance.

Although all transcriptional changes presented were statistically significant, IL6 and pro-platelet basic protein had a p value trending close to significance (0.085 and 0.076, respectively) due to variability despite the observed fold increase in all treatment groups (Table S1 in Supplementary Material).

There was a positive slope between vocabulary in English and in BSL at each time point, which was significant at 15 months, close to significance level at 24 months, but not significant at 7 years.

It is instead close to significance (0.14) when the microorganism is a high producer.

Although none of the pairwise comparisons reached statistical significance after the applied correction, trends close to significance were observed between type 4 honey and types 1 and 2.

We found that Tspo , Hsd3b , Cyp11a1, and Cyp17 showed decreasing trends in rats exposed to 0.1 mg/kg/day, with Hsd3b decrease reaching close to significance with a p -value of 0.0504 at dose 0.1, and a p -value of 0.0713 at dose 10 ( Figure 5 A).

All other site-by-site comparisons were not significant ( p > 0.05), although three comparisons were close to significance (higher allelic richness at St.

Moreover, the only effect that was close to significance was for the orienting network and in the opposite direction: orientation networks scores were lower in biathletes, indicating their less sensitivity to spatial cues.

Furthermore, due to our low power, some variables we found to be non-significant but close to significance in our logistic regression model and PERMANOVA analysis could be significant if assessed in larger cohorts.

Significant differences were detected only in two contact force parameters depending on the used device, although other two parameters were close to significance.

Adjuvant chemotherapy and cisplatin dose were close to significance for recurrence using univariate analysis (Table 2 ).

In fact, none of the QTLs identified for spleen load was even close to significance for the liver, and reciprocally.

In this context, pairwise comparisons involving DBD were statistically significant or close to significance (Fig. 3 c).

In QTLpoly, a “putative QTL” refers to QTL signals that are close to significance thresholds.

However, the P‐ value is close to significance.

No significant difference, although close to significance, was observed when comparing the proportions of co-infected mongrel dogs (6/16; 37.5%) and that of co-infected defined breed animals (3/28; 10.7%) (Fisher's exact test; p = 0.053).

However, in our study, the TABQOL scores of women were higher than men; however, the difference was not statistically significant ( P = .052) despite being close to significance.

Subgroups were compared as in the case of FSHR and no significant differences were observed in NGF expression ( p = 0.32), with the tendency near/close to significance between EOC + PE vs.