Barely Significant
← all phrases

“slightly significant”

1,754 sentences · 1,754 papers · 2,126 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.06p=0.09

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

In the literature

nonagenarian’s vs centenarians, or to the sex of the oldest parent (NC mother vs NC father) did not showed clear evidence of DNAmage differences, despite of a slightly significant p -value (0.0460) for the first comparison with Bekaert clock ( Supplementary Figure 3A , 3B ).
For all-cause neurodegenerative diseases (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.99–1.25, P-value = 0.074) and AD (HR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.99–1.52, P-value = 0.06), a slightly significant difference in the risk of morbidity was observed for those who consumed more than five cups of coffee per day compared with those who never drank coffee.
We found that both groups showed a significant increase in IRD, static trunk endurance, and maternal quality of life, and there was no statistically significant difference when comparing between the two groups; however, a slightly significant improvement was demonstrated in the offline group.
A study showed that the Ce/MgO catalyst could be used for up to three cycles with a slightly significant loss in vanillin production. 11 The difference in vanillin yield between the first and second cycles might be due to a saturated catalyst surface caused by biomass side products, along with a significant lignin-like oligomer from vanillin oxidative polymerization of vanillin, which could explain th
The only exception seemed to be related to step width, where slightly significant differences were highlighted both between groups and systems (but not in the Group × System interaction): this suggests that step width is probably a very challenging and sensible parameter related to the different positions of passive markers and joints of the skeletal model.
There was a slightly significant increased risk of stroke in the CABG group compared with the PCI group (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.00–1.77; I 2 = 15.5%), which was largely driven by the results of the propensity-matched registries (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18–1.90), whereas no difference was found between the two strategies in subset analysis of RCTs (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.55–2.00) ( Figure 3C ).