“nearly significant”

These subjects obtained a nearly significant decrease in the anxiety score from 9 (SD 1.2) to 4.4 (SD 3.8) ( P =0.06), after receiving a negative test.

The two groups were not significantly different in any respect; however, the distribution of the type of TB bordered at a nearly significant level (p = 0 · 06), owing to the greater number of disseminated/miliary TB cases in the nevirapine group.

There was a nearly significant association between the disappearance of VA and a reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02–1.06, p = 0.06), adjusted for age and sex.

In the analysis in MEGA, where PBR positions where a priori assigned, we found that for the PBR d N is higher than d S (indicative of positive selection) and the difference was nearly significant ( P = 0.06).

A nearly significant association was also noted between MetaSite Score and breast cancer specific survival ( p = 0.06) but not overall survival (OS) ( p = 0.21) in the HR+/HER2- group in the time-varying coefficient model, which may be explained by the high proportion of deaths in this group that were not due to breast cancer (48/85 [56%]).

Our study found that the VAS change in the sham acupuncture group was nearly significant ( P = 0.06), and further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to address this point.

There was also an Age × TOD interaction ( F (1,13) = 5.922, p = 0.038) and a nearly significant effect of TOD ( F (1,13) = 4.608, p = 0.06) on number of Arc -positive neurons in layer 2/3 (Figure 5E ).

We noted nearly significant difference on IL-1α levels in active and inactive SpAs ( p = 0.06), and we assume that a greater number of patients would be clearly able to clarify this observation.

This finding is in relation with the lower Cobb angle found for the progressive subjects compared to the stable ones (nearly significant difference, p = 0.06), and is in agreement with that recently observed by our group in a previous study ( Barba et al., 2021 ).

The median concentration of FGF-23 was higher in BRCA carriers of both genders than in the control group, though nearly significant (P=0.06 CI), possibly because of high variability.

Conversely, the same analysis predicting the subsequent (rather than preceding) IOI, yielded a nearly significant effect of surprise level (χ2(1) = 3.52, p = 0.06) but no main effect of condition (χ2(1) = 0.008, p = 0.90) and no interaction (χ2(1) = 0.70, p = 0.40).

Compared to the control group, the best effectiveness of the intervention group was seen in the awe round, in which the increase in SWB was significant (N=171, t169=2.51, Cohen d=0.39, 95% CI 0.10-0.82, P =.01), and players who colored all 4 pictures had nearly significant improvements in SWB (N=171, F4,170=2.34, partial ŋ2=0.053, P =.06) and a significant decrease in anxiety (N=171, F4,170=3.39, partial ŋ2=0.075, P =.01).

This significant selection for earlier laying co‐occurred with a nearly significant ( p = .06) and substantial negative genetic correlation between laying date and fecundity ( r G = −0.65 ± 0.35), which suggested that selection was not acting solely on the environmental component of the trait.

However, the interaction was nearly significant ( F (2.05, ∞) = 2.80, P = 0.060).

Nearly significant down-regulation of axin2 ( p = 0.06) and APC ( p = 0.06) at 1 h was also observed.

In the multivariate analysis that included previous GC boluses, the presence of densitometric OP, DMA and hypogonadism, kidney function, CRP values and the FRAX index for major osteoporotic fractures, the principal risk factors related to the presence of VF were the presence of hypogonadism (OR 12.38; 95% CI 1.85 to >100, p=0.01) and having received GC boluses (OR 3.45; 95% CI 1.04 to 12.15, p=0.01); whereas having a degraded TBS was nearly significant (OR 2.36; 95% CI 0.51 to 12.97, p=0.06).

Item 1 showed nearly significant illusionary effects in the minimum delay condition (score = 1.00±1.57, t(17) = 2.70, P = 0.06, corrected; P<0.01, uncorrected), but failed to show differences between conditions (F(5, 85) = 0.37, P>0.1).

In the blood, MDA levels showed a clear trend of damage: they were nearly significant on day 21 ( p = 0.06; Supplementary Table S1 ) and significantly increased after 90 days of depuration, indicating that oxidative damage was already developing at the earlier time point.

Longer-term memory The memories of treated larvae tested as adults exhibited nearly significant extinction over the tested times (trial effect: F 2,474 = 2.82, P = 0.06, Fig. 1F ).

When we examined yearly rankings, rather than the USA championship meets, increased women in the labor force again predicted a significant increase in female track participation across all 25 years, and it was a nearly significant predictor the past 15 years ( p = 0.06) and the past 6 years (2007–2012; p = 0.05; see Table S4 ).

Although there were no statistically significant difference in mean scar pliability scores at any point of evaluation, a nearly significant difference was found at the 12th week ( P = 0.06).

Visual similarity (pseudo: 0.17; characters: 0.20) impaired memory much more than semantic similarity [0.04; t (19) = 4.35, p < 0.0005], though the latter effect was nearly significant [ t (20) = 2.06, p < 0.06].

A nearly significant ( p < .06) discrepancy emerged between rural and urban infants, in which approximately 19.9% (70,224 weighted households) of rural infant households had no health insurance compared to 16.8% (502,053 weighted households) of urban infant households.

However, subsequent paired t -tests indicated only a nearly significant difference between the dangerous and safe conditions in the congruent condition [ t (21) = 1.95, p = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.43] and a non-significant difference between the dangerous and safe conditions in the incongruent condition [ t (21) = 0.28, p = 0.78, Cohen’s d = 0.07].

Furthermore, SLC26A1 L348P was significantly associated with increased total serum calcium (β = 0.11 mg/dL, P = 1.4 × 10 −3 ), and showed a nearly significant association with albumin-adjusted serum calcium (β = 0.06, P = 0.06) ( Figure 5 and Table 2C ).