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 < 0.081.6× alphagold
An initial model (Model A) was constructed that consisted only of the immediately identifiable baseline predictors with significant or near-significant differences ( p < 0.08) in univariate analysis, including cohort, history of hypertension, baseline glucose, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and treatment assignment.
near-significantp <.081.6× alphagold
In the SEM analysis of the cross-sectional data, we searched for models with: the causality indicated by the longitudinal analyses in Tables S12 and S13 ; higher numbers of exclusively significant ( p <.05) or near-significant (.05< p <.08) parameters; and optimal model fit (root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA) and AIC statistics.
near-significantP = 0.0801.6× alphagold
Using one-way ANOVAs to compare means between the four groups separated by diagnosis and gender, we found significant group differences in age ( F (3,53) = 4.69, P = 0.006) and non-verbal IQ ( F (3,49) = 4.54, P = 0.007), as well as a near-significant group difference in full-scale IQ ( F (3,49) = 2.39, P = 0.080).
near-significantP = 0.081.6× alphagold
Whereas in unstimulated control DCs there was a significant negative correlation between CD86 expression and FD uptake ( r = -0.76, P = 0.03) and there was a near-significant negative correlation with MR expression ( r = -0.46, P = 0.08), this was not found in unstimulated lupus DCs ( r = -0.23, P = 0.33 for FD uptake; r = -0.33, P = 0.46 for MR expression).
near-significantP < .081.6× alphagold
There were 3 survey questions that showed near-significant findings, with females reporting lower scores than males: nurse courtesy and respect (96.05 vs 93.78, P < .08), medical education for discharge (88.89 vs 84.87, P < .06), and would you recommend the hospital (96.33 vs 93.78, P < .07).
near-significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
Post hoc Tukey tests indicate that there is no difference between the opaque and transparent condition ( p = 0.79), but that the unrelated condition is significantly different from the opaque condition ( p = 0.01) and near-significant from the transparent condition ( p = 0.08).
near-significantp = 0.0801.6× alphagold
However, in the control group, a near-significant relationship was observed between age and functional test results (ρ = −0.467, p = 0.080), suggesting a potential trend in which older age may negatively impact performance, although this result did not reach the threshold for statistical significance ( Figure 13 ).