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 = .0641.3× alphagold
Additionally, a near-significant difference was observed in the proportion of utterances produced with examiner support (either prompted or elliptic; β = 48.754, p = .064), indicating a tendency for children who later developed POSI to receive more prompts from the examiner.
near-significantP = 0.0651.3× alphagold
Meanwhile, the results of multiple linear analyses showed a significant association between TyG and LOS-ICU (β = 1.051, P = 0.031) as well as APS score (β = 11.325, P < 0.001), while also indicating a near-significant correlation with LOS-H (β = 1.617, P = 0.065) (Table S6).
near-significantp=0.0651.3× alphagold
The trend toward a main effect of Group reflected that uRPL participants again performed slightly better than controls, but this effect was near-significant for the odorant EST alone (EST: uRPL mean = 48.1 ± 30.3%, Control mean = 35.4 ± 27.4%, Mann-Whitney U = 544.5, p=0.065, RBC = 0.25 (parametric comparison: t(74) = 1.9, p=0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.44); AND: uRPL mean = 61.1 ± 32.5%, Control mean = 55.1 ± 36.8%, Mann-Whitney U = 585, p=0.6, RBC = 0.07 (parametric comparison: t(69) = 0.73, p=0.47, Cohen’s d = 0.17); ANN: uRPL mean = 71.1% ±27.1%, Control mean = 61.3 ± 34%, Mann-Whitney U = 587.5, p=0.15, RBC = 0.19 (parametric comparison: t(74) = 1.38, p=0.17, Cohen’s d = 0.32) ( Figure 2b ).
near-significantp = 0.0651.3× alphagold
Bonferroni-adjusted multiple comparisons ( Table S5 ) did not reveal statistically significant pairwise differences ( p > 0.05), although near-significant trends of cell viability were observed between C and SC (mean difference = −0.019, p = 0.065, 95% CI [−0.0389, 0.0009]), and between SC and N2 (mean difference = 0.018, p = 0.089, 95% CI [0.019, 0.0379]).
near-significantp = 0.0661.3× alphagold
We therefore compared the pituitary mRNA expression levels of β-TSH (measured by RT-PCR as a highly sensitive marker of thyroid function [ 20 ] by two-way ANOVA; the results showed a significant effect of the genotype (p = 0.011), a near-significant effect of iodide treatment (p = 0.066), and no interaction effect between genotype and treatment (p = 0.98), indicating that the Keap1 genotype does not modify the effect of iodide overload on thyroid function ( Fig. 3 C).