“near significance”

Serum T4 concentration tended to increase, reaching significance in C-PF and near significance in C-Ex ( p = 0.05); no changes were observed in CVS groups ( Figure 6 D–F).

Family communication satisfaction regarding the illness showed a trend toward near significance (p>0.05), with HD patients being more satisfied (mean=2.1, SD=1.2).

Having one or more chronic medical conditions, being a member of a community of color (African American/black, Hispanic/Latino), and having less income are significant predictors of higher risk perceptions; being female is of near significance ( p = 0.05).

NCKX4 was also upregulated in Stim1 cKO mice with an adjusted p -value that is near significance (adj. p < 0.05) when compared to both Stim1 HT and Stim1 Ctrl.

Overall, 14 predictors that showed significant association or a trend towards significant association ( p ≤ 0.05) or near significance (0.1 ≥ p > 0.05) with low resilience on the Chi-Square/ Fisher’s exact test were included in a binary logistic regression model.

The variables that showed either significance ( p ≤ 0.05) or near significance (0.1 ≥ p > 0.05) obtained from the univariate chi-squared analysis were ascertained to be included in the logistic regression analysis.

No significant difference in the frequency of extra-renal signs was observed except for a near significance ( p = 0.05) of ocular symptoms for non-truncating vs. truncating mutations ( Figure 5 ).

Negative first impression of breastfeeding does near significance at the p <0.05 level.

Binary logistic regression analysis was carried out to ascertain predictors of low resilience, with significance levels set at p ≤ 0.05 or near significance (0.1 > p > 0.05).

The variables that showed either significance ( p ≤ .05) or near significance (0.1 ≥ p > 0.05) obtained from the univariate Chi-squared analysis were included in the respective regression model.

In contrast, the visibility of the peripheral LSA was significantly higher than that in CS-SENSE for all three R-factors (2, 4, and 6) by Reader 1 ( P < 0.05), but for only the R-factors of 2 ( P < 0.05) and 4 ( P < 0.05) and near significance for the R-factor of 6 ( P = 0.05) by Reader 2.

This observation was further validated by ELISA assay ( p = 0.0507; near significance).

29.4%, p = 0.012, Figure 4B ), and near significance for CIPN20 (β = −7.3, 95%CI = −14.6–0, p = 0.051, Table 2 ).

Notably, high-confidence germline genes were depleted among daf-18 -independent targets of daf-16 with near significance (depletion P = 0.051), suggesting a specific association between daf-16 -independent targets of daf-18 and germline genes.

Although the comparison after treatment showed no statistical difference between the two groups in PWVβ, an arterial stiffness parameter, the P value was near significance (P=0.051) and it should be considered that the clinical samples were not calculated according to the data of arterial stiffness parameter.

Although the contrast between CC and TT treatment groups was near significance, it did not reach the conventional threshold ( P = 0.051).

The P value for Hel-08 was near significance ( P = 0.051; 7 df).

Patient origin was retained in this model because of near significance (OR = 3.310 CI 0.994–11.109; p = 0.051).

In presence of IL-2 and IL-15 there was a significant increase in MIP-1α levels and RANTES had near significance ( P = 0.0512) at 12 h post-infection (p.i.) (data not shown).

2, Mat.) which was near significance (r = 0.66, P = 0.0514).

In configuration 1 with a total of four wounds (n = 4) for each treatment arm that were performed across two pigs ( Figure 4 a), we found accelerated wound closure in the CLEC-treated group that was near significance ( p = 0.0518) based on repeated measures two-way ANOVA over time ( Figure 3 a).

For congruent trials, the main effect of condition was near significance [ F (1, 38) = 4.04, p = 0.052, η 2 = 0.10], but there was no main effect of group [ F (1, 38) = 2.83, p = 0.10, η 2 = 0.07].

Both the final Watered and final Control samples in the near-infrared exhibit higher reflectance values than the early Control and early Watered, and while it is only statistically significant for the Watered samples ( Table 2 ), the Control samples showed P values near significance (p = 0.052).

However, the MBF demonstrated near significance; the mean MBF value was -1.49 ± 4.06 dB for complete responders versus -4.70 ± 4.63 dB for partial responders (p = 0.052).

Amniotic fluid embolism was an important cause of organ failure with near significance (p = 0.052).