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 -value = 0.0561.1× alphagold
GPA was found to have a nearly significant influence on PAL (Estimate = −17.280, SE = 8.413, t = −2.054, p -value = 0.056). 3.8 Mean weekday and weekend steps The analysis of mean weekday steps revealed a significant effect of learning environment type (Online: Estimate = 750.630, SE = 374.150, t = 2.006, p -value = 0.050), but the intercept was not significant (estimate = 5065.490, SE = 3550.890, t = 1.427, p -value = 0.172).
nearly significantP = 0.0561.1× alphagold
Similarly, we found a significant difference between static and long updating trials [ t (72) = 2.94, P = 0.013, d = 0.73 (−0.33, 1.57)] and a nearly significant difference between short and long updating trials [ t (72) = 2.4, P = 0.056; d = 0.8 (0.03, 1.58)] in the 1.8 g condition.
Spatial Updating Depends on Gravity.
Front Neural Circuits · 2020 · PMC7291770
nearly significantp -value < 0.0561.1× alphagold
The decreased circulatory glutamine levels might be related to active glutaminolysis in EM patients. It is important to mention here that both the proline and glutamine levels have been estimated with respect to formate (as an internal reference), and possibly, this may have impacted the quantitative profiles of these metabolites, rendering a nearly significant change in the glutamine levels between the EM and NC groups ( p -value < 0.056, Figure 2 B).
nearly significantp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
Using this approach, we observed a nearly significant group difference following training for the CPT task ( F (1,46 = 3.85, p = 0.056), a significant group effect for mft power ( F (1,44 = 4.35, p = 0.043) and a sigshynificant group effect for diastolic blood pressure ( F (1,42 = 6.93, p = 0.012), supporting the assertion that the reported ANOVA effects were not driven by trending baseline differences between groups. For post-hoc analysis of the within-group changes, we performed two-tailed, paired-sample t -tests on each group separately to test for significant differences between each testing session.
nearly significantp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
S7 ) and a nearly significant interaction between stimulus and group ( χ 2 (18) = 9.224, p = 0.056), explained by a significant difference in Nc latency between infants with (FH-ASD) and without (noFH-noASD+FH-noASD) later ASD for the social (FD + FA) vs non-social (Noise) stimulus contrast ( β = −20.091, s.e. = 6.796, p = 0.003) such that, descriptively, shorter latencies to faces than Noise were observed in the FH-ASD group, while longer latencies to faces than Noise were observed in the noFH-noASD and FH-noASD groups.
nearly significantp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
In multivariate binary logistic regression analysis using the nine factors selected in univariate analysis, only the IWATE criteria (≥ 7) showed a nearly significant p-value [ p = 0.056], potentially suggesting an association with major postoperative complications.