Barely Significant
← all phrases

“did not reach statistical significance”

111,028 sentences · 111,028 papers · 130,054 search hits before verification

In the literature

While no specific Ratio of Ratios (RoR) was significantly different from 1 for any pair, certain comparisons, such as "Non opioid analgesic plus Opioid: Non opioid analgesic" (p=0.0782) and "NSAID plus Non opioid analgesic plus Opioid: Non opioid analgesic" (p=0.0759), exhibited marginal p-values, suggesting a possible trend towards inconsistency that did not reach statistical significance.
Similarly, the Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (SII) [neutrophil × platelet/lymphocyte] showed an increasing trend in ICU-admitted patients; however, this did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to the limited sample size and heterogeneity of the study population [ 22 ].
The results showed a trend toward partial recovery of associative learning ability following gene therapy, though it did not reach statistical significance, likely due to inter‐animal variability and a limited sample size compared to rodent behavioral studies (Figure S10 , Supporting Information).
did not reach statistical significancep = 0.74915.0× alphaplainly factual
An interesting finding revealed in this study was a positive trend toward an association of high immunohistochemical expression of RUNX2 with larger tumor sizes; however, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.749) (Table 2 ).
Comparison of cell-type composition revealed that the proportion of CD25 + cells within the CD4+ T cell compartment showed an increasing trend in non-survivors compared with survivors at both the sample and cell levels, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (Additional file 2: Figure S3).
did not reach statistical significanceP = 0.0861.7× alphaplainly factual
A platelet count ≥100×10 9 /L, aspartate aminotransferase < 80 U/L, lactate dehydrogenase <500 U/L, and receipt of anti-tumor therapy showed a trend toward better survival but did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.086, P = 0.075, P = 0.059, and P = 0.080, respectively).
Although both normal weight (OR = 0.25,95% CI:0.06 ~ 1.03, p = 0.05) and overweight (OR = 0.11, 95% CI:0.01 ~ 1.25, p = 0.08) groups showed a trend toward reduced risk compared to the underweight reference group, these associations did not reach statistical significance in multivariable model.