Barely Significant
← all phrases

“nearly significant”

3,288 sentences · 3,288 papers · 3,853 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.0579p=0.06

Listed by Hankins, posted since · Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

nearly significantp < 0.051.0× alphagold
In Group 1, Lovö vattenverk, Görvälnverket and Kvarnagårdens vattenverk showed reductions where p values were nearly significant ( p < 0.05) (Table 2 ). 3.4 Temporal Differences in Contigs Homologous to Viral Sequences at the Different DWTPs Contigs homologous to viruses of all categories tended to be more prevalent in the raw waters collected in March–July, followed by a decrease in November–December (Figures 6 and 7 ) in the three DWTPs with the highest number of contigs in the raw water samples (Lovö vattenverk, Görvälnverket and Vombverket).
nearly significantP = 0.051.0× alphagold
Planned post hoc analyses between groups revealed a nearly significant PTSD symptom reduction at 6 months with greater improvement in the test group compared with the control group ( t (25)= − 2.06, P = 0.05) (test group: M = 27.47 [SD = 18.4]; control group: M = 42.9 [SD = 22.5]).
nearly significantp=0.051.0× alphagold
Smoking IUI with donor semen and female smoking Univariate statistical analysis showed that CPR in women smoking 15 cigarettes or more daily was significantly lower compared to women smoking 1-14 cigarettes daily (p=0.01) and there was a nearly significant lower CPR compared with non- smoking women (p=0.05), ( Table I , Fig. 1A ).
nearly significantp = 0.051.0× alphagold
Analyses with this pruned dataset were found to mirror the results conducted on the full dataset, so that the main effect of Age Cohort was nearly significant ( F (2,137) = 3.01, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.04, ε = 0.73), and post hoc comparisons revealed that the percentage of overlapping voxels was significantly lower for the middle adolescent cohort than the young adult cohort ( p = 0.03).
nearly significantp = 0.05021.0× alphagold
NICU-like) × 3 [Injection: Non-injected v control virus v hM4D(Gi)] ANOVA revealed there was no significant main effect of condition F (1, 39) = 0.01521, p = 0.9025, or injection F (2, 39) = 1.004, p = 0.3758, there was a nearly significant interaction between condition and injection F (2, 39) = 3.233, p = 0.0502.
nearly significantP = 0.05021.0× alphagold
If self- and non-self- reports were tested separately for the effect of study characteristics (one characteristic at a time), a significant effect was found only in self-reports for year when survey was conducted (k = 7, b = −0.1425±0.0519, P = 0.006) and a nearly significant effect was found again in self-reports for survey delivery method (k = 7, b = −1.2496±0.6382, P = 0.0502) Sensitivity analysis Self-report admission rates varied between 1.65% -following the removal of Kalichman and Friedman (1992) [35] - and 2.93% -following the removal of Martinson et al.
nearly significantp = 0.05031.0× alphagold
Among late adults, social recognition was nearly significant, although negative ( p = 0.0503). 1) Self-determinant (autonomous) motivations such as excitement and socialization do not contribute to the progression of problem gambling. 2) Two non-self-determinant (non-autonomous) motivations, social recognition in early adults and amotivation in late adults, are predictors of problem gambling. 3) Social recognition is a dichotomic and paradoxical motivation in the progress of problem gambling according to age.