Barely Significant
← all phrases

“partial significance”

66 sentences · 66 papers · 79 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p<0.09p>0.09

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

In the literature

partial significancep = 0.051.0× alphaqualifiedgold
High-risk group patients showed to be associated with an overall longer time for anesthesia, surgery, CPB and ACC, with a significantly higher anesthesia and surgery time compared with the low-risk group (median: 270 vs 240, p = 0.01; 240 vs 210, p < 0.01, respectively) and a partial significance in CPB time (median: 99 vs 81, p = 0.05) as shown in Figure 3 A–C.
partial significancep -value = 0.0521.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The 5-gene risk score calculated as PC1 was associated with the partial significance of worse prognosis (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.0–1.61, p -value = 0.052), and the low-risk group was partially associated with better disease prognosis (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.51–1.03, p -value = 0.073), as shown in Figure 2 A. 3.3.
partial significancep = 0.0571.1× alphaqualifiedgold
Associations between stress levels, barrier and resource frequency, and health behavior determinant magnitude scores Resource frequency exhibited partial significance such that not chronically stressed participants had higher resource frequency (vs chronically stressed), χ 2 = 12.218, p = 0.057, C = 0.47.
partial significancep < 0.12.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Features such as the median intensity from the wavelet (H) filter, long run high gray level emphasis from the wavelet (H), indicating the presence of long, high-intensity runs in the image, and GLSZM small area emphasis from LoG sigma 3.0, a measure of the concentration of small bright regions in the filtered image, exhibited partial significance (0.05 < p < 0.1), suggesting mixed or context-dependent contributions to the models.
The overall results are as follows: 5 studies (14.71%) observed no significant improvement in both control and PI groups across all body image measures; 3 studies (8.82%) observed significant improvement in both control and PI groups across all body image measures; 10 studies (29.41%) reported significant improvement in PI group across all body image measures; 16 studies (47.06%) reported partial significance effect in PI groups (i.e., not all improvement in scores measured in the subscales of the implemented questionnaires reached significance).
Intergroup comparisons were analyzed using alphabetical superscript notation according to the following conventions: groups sharing identical letters (e.g., a,a) demonstrate statistically insignificant differences (p>0.05); those with distinct letter designations (e.g., a,b) exhibit statistically significant divergence (p<0.05); while groups marked with shared letter combinations (e.g., a,b) indicate partial significance overlaps with specific subgroups through multiple comparison analyses.