Barely Significant
← all phrases

“near-significant”

2,307 sentences · 2,307 papers · 5,465 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Listed by Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

near-significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Reduction in TMV was associated with reduced normalized white matter volume ( β = 0.021, 95% CI [0.006, 0.036], p = 0.0137), increased WMH volume ( β = −11.0, 95% CI [−17.4, −4.0], p = 0.0046), and a near-significant increase in mean diffusivity ( β = −0.017, 95% CI [−0.035, −0.001], p = 0.057).
near-significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Steroid Metabolism Cortisone showed a significant 4.0-fold depletion, from SC to 200 μg/L exposure, in response to fenitrothion ( p = 0.004, post hoc: 200 μg/L group significantly different from WC, SC, and 2 μg/L exposure), and 11-hydroxyandrostenedione showed a near-significant 2.9-fold increase from SC to 200 μg/L exposure ( p = 0.057, Figure 2 A,B).
near-significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Furthermore, a subgroup analysis identified a strong, near-significant trend ( p = 0.057) indicating that single-stage procedures are associated with higher RTS rates of 81% (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.89) compared to 67% (95% CI: 0.57 to 0.76) for two-stage procedures, pointing to a clinically important effect ( Figure 6 ). 3.2.7.
near-significantP = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified syndecan-1 > 45 ng/mL at abdominal closure as a potential predictor of postoperative complications (area under the curve = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.59-0.76), and multivariable analysis showed a near-significant association (OR = 2.88, P = 0.057).
near-significantp = .0571.1× alphagold
There were no significant slope effects but the intoxicated user group had a near-significant effect on the linear slope between 46 and 68 min ( b = 1.04, SE = 0.55, p = .057), and a similar trend was observed in the non-intoxicated user group ( b = 1.26, SE = 0.71, p = .075) suggesting a gentler downward slope compared with the control condition.
near-significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Two factors, however, showed comparatively stronger signals: task paradigm demonstrated a significant between-subgroup difference (F (3,8) = 10.06, p = 0.004) with relatively low heterogeneity at the factor level (I2 = 18.28%), and gender showed a near-significant omnibus signal (F (2,9) = 4.00, p = 0.057).