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

In favor of this interpretation, which correlates the degree of integrity of dopaminergic neurons of retina and locomotor response to the optic flow stimulation, there is the result that also normal subjects (thus with normal dopaminergic function), in our study, are influenced by optic flow, showing a nearly significant increase of stride length.
(2006) found a significant worsening in extrapyramidal symptoms as assessed with the SAS in subjects treated with haloperidol compared with placebo (MD 2.72; 95% CI: [1.36, 4.08]) and a nearly significant difference in the AIMS score compared with placebo (MD 0.58; 95% CI: [− 0.10, 1.26]) [ 64 ].
In addition, we observed no changes in preference ( Table 2 ), perhaps due to the low level of concurrent water drinking across the 2-h session ( Dhaher et al., 2009 ; Seif et al., 2015 ; Hartog et al., 2016 ; Lei et al., 2016b ), although concurrent water intake was greater during 2bc-IA versus 2bc-DID sessions ( p = 0.0032 Mann–Whitney) and 2bc-IA preference change was nearly significant (not shown).
In the spinal cord, however, after MOG 35–55 stimulation, although not statistically significant, there was a possible trend toward an increase in the IL-17A + and FoxP3 + CD4 + T cells infiltrating the spinal cord in Trp73 −/− mice, a nearly significant increase in the percentage of IFNγ-producing CD4 + cells, and increased CD25 expression (Fig. 6d ), consistent with p73 negatively regulating Il2ra expression (Figs. 3e and 5e ).
Furthermore, differences in the number of larval fleas between heated and control nests were nearly significant, and the interaction between locality and treatment in relation to larval flea abundance clearly indicates that heat treatment had an effect on nests in Spain but not on those in Germany.
Notable were satisfaction ( Z C1 = −2.67; p C1 = 0.008; r C1 = 0.47; Z C2 = −1.66; p C2 = 0.097; r C2 = 0.29; pre-test: M C1 = 3.57; SD C1 = 0.48; M C2 = 3.50; SD C2 = 0.50; post-test: M C1 = 4.91; SD C1 = 0.47; M C2 = 3.56; SD C2 = 0.46) and autonomy ( Z C1 = −2.67; p C1 = 0.008; r C1 = 0.47; Z C2 = −1.65; p C2 = 0.098; r C2 = 0.29; pre-test: M C1 = 3.58; SD C1 = 0.42; M C2 = 3.50; SD C2 = 0.47; post-test: M C1 = 4.51; SD C1 = 0.39; M C2 = 3.54; SD C2 = 0.47), where the difference in C2 was nearly significant.