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 = 0.1032.1× alpha
The high-dose-treated mice showed a trend of less GFAP accumulation in the brain compared to mock-treated mice ( p = 0.103 by a 2 sample t -test on the logarithms of the levels), whereas no difference was detected between the low-dose-treated and mock infected mice ( p = 0.906 again by a 2 sample t -test) as seen in Fig 2 .
showed a trendp = 0.1042.1× alpha
Although not reaching statistical significance, group 1 patients showed a trend toward having more genetic alterations in the RTK/RAS and PI3K pathways ( p = 0.104 and p = 0.611, respectively), while those in group 2 were more likely to carry TP53 mutations and alterations in the HIPPO pathway ( p = 0.184 and p = 0.659, respectively) (Figure 3I ).
showed a trendp = 0.1042.1× alpha
In terms of the time to MB or CRB, rivaroxaban showed a trend of being a risk factor for MB (HR 3.89; p = 0.104) and CRB (HR 2.37; p = 0.102) compared to dalteparin ( Table S2 ).
However, in multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for TNM stage and history of breast disease, the GATA6high/TGFB2-AS1low signature did not reach statistical significance as an independent prognostic factor—though it showed a trend toward worse DFS (HR = 1.86, 95% CI: 0.88–3.93; P = 0.104) and no significant association with OS (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.39–3.37; P = 0.799).
showed a trendp = 0.1042.1× alpha
Four out of ninety-nine lncRNAs, namely NRIR, PSMB8-AS1, RP5-1091N2.9, and RP11-24F11.2, were expressed at significantly higher levels in at least two groups of SSc patients as compared to their respective healthy donors in the “definite SSc” cohort ( Figure 3A ), whereas only NRIR was significantly up-regulated in ncSSc and showed a trend in eaSSc (FC = 1.30, p = 0.104) in the “non-fibrotic” cohort ( Figure 3B ).
showed a trendp =.1052.1× alpha
There was no group effect following intervention in an ancova model considering positive and negative vigilance simultaneously, however, simple effects contrasts of group responses to negative and positive vigilance separately showed a trend towards a reduction in negative vigilance following intervention in the GOS group compared to placebo group (β -30.75 ms, SE = 18.58, p =.105), Fig. 3 B.