Barely Significant
← all phrases

“not quite statistically significant”

342 sentences · 342 papers · 443 search hits before verification

In the literature

not quite statistically significantP = 0.0718201491.4× alpha
For example, using the NPEST virus with TEVP provided, the average number of remaining “source cells” (defined in this case as cells that were labeled by the virus and expressed both G and TEVP) dropped from 29 at 7 d to 2 at 3 wk [although here again the comparison was not quite statistically significant ( P = 0.071820149) due to the high variance and low number ( 3 ) of mice per group].
not quite statistically significantp value = 0.0721.4× alpha
The father–child association is lower at \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hat{\tau }_\mathrm{fc} = 0.225$$\end{document} τ ^ fc = 0.225 (95% CI: −0.030, 0.452) and not quite statistically significant ( p value = 0.072).
Marital status was not quite statistically significant, with carfentanil 39% more common in married decedents (PR=1.39 [0.97–2.01]; p =.075) and 29% more common in those who were divorced or widowed (PR=1.29 [0.97–1.72]; p =.078) compared to decedents who were never married.
We performed statistical analysis comparing the nuclear protrusion lengths at multiple time points, which revealed a significant decrease in nuclear protrusion length of M1 macrophages compared to M0 macrophages at 60 and 190 s of aspiration, and a slight but not quite statistically significant difference ( p = 0.076) at 140 s (Supplemental Fig. 5A–C ).
For long-term memory consolidation, two-way ANOVA analyses revealed that there was no statistically significant effect caused by MK-801 (0.3 mg/kg) treatment [ F (1.25) = 0.06; p = 0.802], not quite statistically significant effect caused by AM 251 (0.25 mg/kg) pretreatment [ F (1.25) = 3.39; p = 0.0774], and there was a statistically significant effect caused by interactions between AM 251 (0.25 mg/kg) pretreatment and MK-801 (0.3 mg/kg) treatment [ F (1.25) = 10.33; p = 0.0036].
The quantification of pixel intensity of GLUT1 showed a statistically significant decrease in primary BMECs exposed to 0.6 dyn/cm 2 CSS and 0.6 dyn/cm 2 PSS compared to their respective static control, as well as an increase in response to 10 dyn/cm 2 CSS that was not quite statistically significant (p = 0.0781) ( Figure 5B ).
An interaction between syntactic structure and foil type was not quite statistically significant, [ F 1 (2,46) = 2.66, p = 0.08], but the relatively high error rate for RSO sentences with syntactic foils (∼5%) exceeds the error rate for all other conditions, reflecting the particular difficulty of this condition, as seen also in the reaction time data.