Barely Significant
← all phrases

“not quite significant”

649 sentences · 649 papers · 6,904 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=.11p=0.118

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

In the literature

not quite significantP = 0.132.6× alphagold
Single features associated with prognosis were (in order of decreasing significance according to single variate analysis): FIGO stage (P = 0.0002), bulky disease (P = 0.004), standard deviation and mean of nuclear area (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.01), cellular DNA content (P = 0.01), mitotic activity index (P = 0.08) and volume percentage epithelium (P = 0.13, not quite significant).
not quite significantp = 0.132.6× alphagold
Spiteful types are also more common among individuals than among teams, although this time the difference is not quite significant (13% vs. 4%, p = 0.13), probably due to the low number of observations. 4 Decision-making process within teams Having documented substantial differences in the final choices of individuals and teams, we now turn to the specifics of the process of team decision making which can give us insights into the sources of these differences.
Revealed distributional preferences: Individuals vs. teams.
J Econ Behav Organ · 2014 · PMC4375946
not quite significantp = 0.52610.5× alphagold
The 2nd versus 1st quartiles of the di- ortho congeners [OR = 0.27 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.74)] was significant but inverse while the difference between the 4th versus 1st quartiles of the tri- and tetra- ortho congeners [OR = 2.90 (95% CI: 0.99, 8.51)] was positive and not quite significant ( p = 0.526).
not quite significantP = 0.59411.9× alphagold
Interaction between MC4R rs17782313 and energy and fat intake to determine the risk of obesity There was relevant, but not quite significant ( P = 0.594), interaction between energy intake and MC4R polymorphism in determining the risk of obesity after adjusting for confounders such as age, gender, area, total activity and smoking status ( P = 0.0594; Table 4 ).
It is notable that, although not quite significant, there was a trend for GLX rats to consume less of both HS options so it is possible that in the context of the available choices, the high sugar content and grainier texture of these foods was less palatable or the smoother textures of the LS choices was more palatable.
Under the highest light conditions analysed, Δ T was again higher for Miconia than Alchornea ; however, the difference was not quite significant (Figure 4 d). 3.5 Thermal trait variation between species Stomatal conductance ( g s ) significantly declined with increasing D , and the relation varied significantly between species (Figure 5 , Table 2 ).