Barely Significant
← all phrases

“failed to achieve significance”

300 sentences · 300 papers · 334 search hits before verification

In the literature

highly significantP < 0.00040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
failed to achieve significanceP = 0.0521.0× alphaplainly factual
Bonferroni-corrected post hoc paired T -tests revealed a highly significant difference between fluent and nonfluent ABM sequences for body stimuli ( t (23) = 6.3, P < 0.0004), but the corresponding difference for nonbody stimuli just failed to achieve significance ( t (23) = 2.7, P = 0.052).
failed to achieve significancep = 0.0030.1× alpha
Although the interaction tests failed to achieve significance, higher Pfat was significantly associated with a slower rate of enlargement of the inferior lateral ventricle in APOE ε4 carriers ( β = −36.0, p = 0.003) and/or female individuals ( β = −28.4, p = 0.005) (Table S4 ). 4.
failed to achieve significancep = 0.04210.8× alpha
Despite this, the recently published final results of the ORACLE phase III study comparing oral 5-azacytidine to investigator’s choice in R/R AITL failed to achieve significance in the primary endpoint of PFS with a median PFS in the 5-azacytidine group of 5.6 months versus 2.8 months in the standard arm (p = 0.0421) ( 140 ).
RSV at the dose of 60 mg/kg BW/day tended to increase the levels of transcripts of the exons tested in this study, but the effect failed to achieve significance (Kruskal-Wallis test/Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction, P≤0.05) under our experimental conditions. mRNA Expression of BDNF Exons I, III, IV and the Common Exon IX in the Hippocampi of Embryonic Rats We tried to evaluate the effects of RSV on the expression levels of the above exons in the hippocampi of embryos in the RSV treated rats.
close to borderline significancep = .0701.4× alphagold
failed to achieve significancep = .0701.4× alphaplainly factual
When examining the liver, we observed a modest antitumour effect in the BF MSC group, which failed to achieve significance compared with the CTR [1.375 (1.037 to 2.561) vs 2.610 (1.751 to 4.075), 0.5-fold change; close to borderline significance ( p = .070)], EV MSC [1.375 (1.037 to 2.561) vs 2.915 (1.276 to 3.633), 0.6-fold change; p > .05], or GD2 tCAR MSC [1.375 (1.037 to 2.561) vs 2.318 (1.182 to 3.202), 0.6-fold change; p > .05] groups ( Fig. 6 c).