Barely Significant
← all phrases

“might be significant”

2,436 sentences · 2,436 papers · 8,962 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.065p=0.54

Listed by Hankins, posted since

In the literature

Despite the numerous attempts at measuring transcriptional noise in aged tissues, several challenges remain: (i) there are important differences in between studies with regard to the definition of transcriptional noise and the computational methods used to quantify it; (ii) studies focused mostly on single datasets of different tissues and cell types, while it is well known that both the inter-tissue and the inter-cellular variability might be significant; and (iii) little to no attention was given to the fact that cellular composition of aged organs shows relevant variability as compared to the young ( Nalapareddy et al., 2022 ).
Jia et al measured the peripheral dose from an MV-CBCT system and concluded that the peripheral dose due to MV-CBCT imaging might be significant during the daily application of the MV-CBCT procedure. 15 Perks et al found doses of >1 cGy per scan outside the CBCT imaged volume. 16 Apart from the IGRT dose, some studies reported that low radiation dose was associated with the onset of cataracts, thyroid diseases, azoospermia, loss of ovarian function, and oocyte death. 17–22 Su et al indicated that the population exposed to low-dose-rate environmental radiation throughout their lives were highly at risk of cortical and posterior subcapsular lens opacification.
84 However, bleeding might still occur 65 and might be significant (eg, if surgical stress is applied); therefore, higher-than-prophylactic levels are recommended in FXIII-deficient patients undergoing surgery. 63 , 85 In pregnancy, more frequent replacements with lower doses have been reported to be successful, 69 which is important, as pregnant women with severe
From the experimental results, the design of this paper has achieved a good effect, but this study still has some shortcomings: first, there are few subjects, and there might be significant differences in the data related to urine and stool of different subjects, which makes the test results not general, and it is impossible to identify the urine and stool of most users accurately.
The following guidelines were followed when evaluating heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic: 0% to 40% might not be significant, 30% to 60% might be moderate heterogeneity, 50% to 90% might be significant heterogeneity, and 75% to 100% could represent considerable heterogeneity ( Higgins et al., 2022 ).
This gave some reassurance that duty of care-related issues were not influencing the willingness or ability to provide follow-up data, or that there might be significant under-reporting of the rate of duty of care responses at follow-up (Table 4 ).