Barely Significant
← all phrases

“possibly significant”

650 sentences · 650 papers · 794 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Listed by Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

Although each structural parameter on its own looks similar upon comparing the conventional (1D) and multi-dimensional (2D) treatments, also in terms of precision, a closer view shows small but possibly significant differences.
POWTEX visits POWGEN.
J Appl Crystallogr · 2023 · PMC10241063
The STEs for the HR of iPFS and cPFS were 0.75 and 1.21, respectively, which are the maximal HR for observed iPFS and cPFS needed to report possibly significant treatment effect on OS. 3.4 Trial‐level correlation between median OS and median iPFS/cPFS For the ICI arms evaluated by conventional criteria, the mean and standard deviation of median OS and median cPFS were 12.98 ± 5.33 months and 4.30 ± 2.39 months, respectively, whereas the mean and standard deviation of median OS and median iPFS were 10.14 ± 3.44 months and 4.93 ± 1.75 months for the ICI arms evaluated by immune‐related criteria.
We use the term "possibly significant" if the p-value is less than 0.05 but not low enough to be marginally significant; this means that the result would be significant if only one comparison were made, but could be a statistical fluke due to the making of many comparisons, so further studies are needed to confirm or invalidate the result.
Having a gradient-free method for this example with parameter space of dimension 207 provides a significant advantage over gradient methods such as finite differencing, where the computation of a very high number of partial derivatives and/or directional derivatives is needed and with possibly significant variance that scales with the dimension, [ 11 ].
PMS2 , Incidental Finding but Possibly Significant for Management Case 3 is a 30-year-old unaffected woman of Northern European ancestry, self-referred for GCRA due to a family history of multiple cancers that included a paternal aunt who had breast cancer at age 44 and a new primary breast cancer at age 46, who passed away at age 52, a maternal grandmother who had breast cancer in her 60s and died at age 70, and a maternal aunt with ovarian cancer in late 40s who was alive at age 55 (no pathological reports available).
One year later, at its meeting in February 1980, the EMBO SAC reckoned that the time was ripe for “a radical simplification” of guidelines for rDNA research, providing a clear distinction between “the vast majority of experiments” with insignificant risks and the “very few for which a scientific case for a possibly significant biohazard can still be made.” 52 To reinforce this position, the committee could now also refer to the results of the “EMBO Risk Testing Experiment” concerning the measurement of the infectivity in tissue cultured mouse cells of rDNA molecules containing polyoma virus DNA.