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 = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Generally the non-dominant (left) eye tended to have larger isoline contour areas (average ISOA across all subjects and all binocular conditions = 83.18 minarc 2 ), which means that fixation was less stable in that eye than in the dominant (right) eye (average ISOA = 54.11 minarc 2 ), but this trend was not quite significant (repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), F (2, 3) = 6.98, p = 0.057).
not quite significantp = 0.05721.1× alphagold
We observed an increase in the nuclear, but not the cytoplasmic IHC staining for MAT1A (Mean: 0.966 ± 0.42) compared to those whose prior treatment status was listed as “not reported” (Mean: 0.6468 ± 0.3568) or those previously treated with BCG (Mean: 0.6475 ± 0.454); this difference was not quite significant ( p = 0.0572), likely due to insufficient statistical power from a limited sample size ( Figure 3 C).
not quite significantp = 0.0581.2× alphagold
The significant interaction was due to a slightly rightwards AQ for the small group of female PWS but this difference was not quite significant compared with the AQ for the female controls ( p = 0.058) and the AQs for the two male groups did not differ significantly either ( p = 0.102) (see Fig. 4 ). 3.1.3.
Planum temporale asymmetry in people who stutter.
J Fluency Disord · 2018 · PMC5846813
not quite significantp = 0.0581.2× alphagold
The difference was not quite significant for the continuously varying MHI-5 scores either (p = 0.058 in t-test and p = 0.064 for Kruskal-Wallis test), but the continuous ISI scores at the last follow up were still statistically significantly higher for the early frontline employees than for the non-frontline employees (6.82 vs. 5.51; p = 0.001 in t-test and p = 0.001 in Kruskal-Wallis test).
not quite significantP =0.0591.2× alphagold
This result holds on average across all of the guidance models that we fitted independently to each flight, and also holds for the proportional navigation controller in particular – albeit that the qualitatively better fit of the model treating the midpoint of the gap as the target of the bird's guidance is not quite significant in this specific case (Wilcoxon signed rank test: z =–1.89, P =0.059).