Barely Significant
← all phrases

“near to significance”

57 sentences · 57 papers · 695 search hits before verification

In the literature

near to significancep = .0521.0× alpha
There was no main effect of hearing loss on difficulty, F (2,43) = 2.100, p = .135, η p 2 = .089 or on effort, F (2,43) = 1.932, p = .157, η p 2 = .082, but there was an effect near to significance on frustration, F (2,43) = 3.100, p = .052, η p 2 = .129.
The impact of text segmentation on subtitle reading.
J Eye Mov Res · 2018 · PMC7901653
near to significancep = 0.0571.1× alpha
The continuous NLR and PLR values were then grouped (with cut-offs of 3.02 and 6.82, respectively); results of univariate models on NLR (≤3.02/>3.02) and PLR (≤6.82/>6.82) groups indicated that although NLR was near to significance (p = 0.057), PLR was statistically significant ( Table 5 C; p = 0.034). 4.
near to significancep =0.0571.1× alpha
The relationships between the number of oocytes and metals: iron ( r s =0.303; p =0.003) and calcium ( r s =−0.276; p =0.007) are significant, as well as between the number of mature oocytes with iron ( r s =0.319; p =0.002), calcium ( r s =−0.307; p =0.003) and sodium ( r s =−0.215; p =0.039) and are near to significance in the case of aluminium ( r s =−0.198; p =0.057).
near to significancep = 0.0581.2× alpha
The only interaction term near to significance ( p = 0.058; F-test justified omission from final model; Table 2 ) was the interaction between temperature and thiacloprid pointing towards a lower relative reduction in gammarid feeding at 20°C relative to 16°C.
near to significancep=0.0581.2× alpha
However, in the 9 individuals of the conv group as well as in the 9 treated individuals receiving mAb, BMI positively correlated with nasal anti-S1-IgA and nasal anti-RBD IgG antibodies ( Supplementary Figure 4B and Supplementary Table 11 ), with IC50 against Wuhan-type SARS-CoV-2 and near to significance with anti-spike-IgG concentrations (p=0.058).
near to significanceP = 0.061.2× alpha
This may be due to the disparity between the screen viewing distance and the individual's convergence.[ 26 ] However, in the current study, there was no significant association between screen distance and DES among the children in the multivariate analysis, but in univariate analysis, the association was near to significance ( P = 0.06).
near to significanceP = 0.0631.3× alpha
There were also no male holding behaviors observed during the first month of pregnancy, but a comparison of the pre-conceptive period versus the second month of pregnancy revealed an effect near to significance (LRT: X 2 = 3.45, Δdf = 3, P = 0.063, see Table C in S1 File for further details), with the probability of observing males performing holding behaviors significantly decreasing during the second month of pregnancy (GLMM: z = -2.00, P = 0.045, see Table D in S1 File for further details).