Barely Significant
← all phrases

“showed a trend”

53,323 sentences · 53,323 papers · 65,371 search hits before verification

In the literature

showed a trendp = 0.0541.1× alpha
Although the intergroup comparison revealed no significant group differences, the direct comparison of steroid-sensitive and steroid-refractory samples showed a trend towards higher CD4 + CD25 + CD127 low T reg repertoire diversity ( p = 0.054; CD4 + T con , p = 0.114) linked to steroid sensitivity.
showed a trendp = 0.0541.1× alpha
However, the correlation (N = 24) between the Ownership Potentiometer Ratings during the last 30 s of visuo-tactile stimulation (seconds 90 to 120; ME = 553.13, IQR = 485.43) and the Ownership component of the illusion as measured with the questionnaires was significant (ME = 1, IQR = 1.65) r s = 0.51, BCa 95% CI [− 0.07, 0.81], p = 0.009, and showed a trend after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, p = 0.054 (see Fig. 9 C).
showed a trendp = 0.0541.1× alpha
In contrast to our findings, in a retrospective study of patients with activating EGFR mutations ( n = 123) who were treated with EGFR TKIs, OS showed a trend in favor of continuing versus discontinuing EGFR TKI treatment following RECIST PD (33.0 versus 21.2 months, respectively; p = 0.054) [ 25 ].
showed a trendP = 0.0541.1× alpha
Eyes that underwent greater amount of iCMT change (absolute value of iCMT change) were associated with greater CMT reduction at month 1 ( P < 0.001) and month 3 ( P = 0.010), whereas those with greater intraoperative thinning (actual iCMT change) showed a trend toward better VA outcomes at months 1 ( P = 0.054) and 3 ( P = 0.036).
showed a trendP ‐value = 0.0541.1× alpha
However, we also tried analyzing a multivariate regression equation model using the dichotomized NCCN‐IPIs (divided into two groups of low/low‐intermediate and high‐intermediate/high‐risk groups) and concluded that TLG 0 , TLG 1 , and the dichotomized NCCN‐IPIs showed predictive value independently (HR = 5.839, 95% CI 1.20‐28.44, P ‐value = 0.029; HR = 3.082, 95% CI 1.15‐8.25, P = 0.025; HR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.08‐8.33, P = 0.035, respectively) (Table S2 ), whereas that of %ΔSUV max in this model showed a trend for significance as an independent predictor of PFS (HR = 3.80, 95% CI 0.98‐14.77, P ‐value = 0.054).