Conversely, the analysis revealed significant positive correlations with the STAI—T items: “I get in a state of tension or turmoil as I think over my recent concerns and interests” (rho(82) = 0.38, p = 0.0018) and a tendency toward significance with the item: “I feel like a failure” (rho(82) = 0.30, p = 0.0026).
← all phrases
“tendency toward significance”
In the literature
Compliance of respiratory system was significantly related to the age of the patients in ARDS group ( r 2 = 0.64, p < 0.005) but only showed a tendency toward significance in the control group ( r 2 = 0.35, p = 0.007) (see Additional file 1 : Figures S8, S9).
The ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2; HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.01-1.40; P = .035) ( Supplemental Figure S1 E ) showed a significant association with PFS, and it also showed a similar tendency toward significance for OS (0-1 vs 2; HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 0.95-1.48; P = .035) ( Supplemental Figure S1 F ).
Similar results were obtained in the CIMA-CUN cohort ( n = 95 cases); however, in this case, a tendency toward significance ( p = 0.12) for RFS and a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.0499) for OS were observed ( Figure S1A,B, Supplementary Materials ).
In the unpaired t-test, RER and the percentages of CHO and fat oxidation differed significantly between the LA and HA groups (p<0.05), whereas CHO and fat oxidation (per body weight and fat-free mass) related to substrate oxidation showed a tendency toward significance (p=0.050–0.054).
The under-16 category players obtain higher scores than the players of the under-18 category in all the factors, although only statistically significant differences appears in Team Cohesion ( p < 0.05.), and a tendency toward significance in the Motivation factor ( p < 0.05).
Variables demonstrating a tendency toward significance in univariate testing ( p < 0.05) were included in a multivariate analysis.
A tendency toward significance was also found in the Digit Span forward score ( Z = 1.96, p = 0.05).
Statistically significant difference was assumed at P < 0.05 and a tendency toward significance was assumed at P ≥ 0.05 but P < 0.10.
In each test, statistical significance and the tendency toward significance were inferred at * p < 0.05 and † p < 0.1, respectively. 2.9 Mean-field “Go-or-Grow” model The simulations were performed using a numerical mean-field “Go-or-Grow” model coded in the Python language, which we recently introduced to explain ring propagation in confined spot experiments ( Cochet-Escartin et al., 2021 ).
These differences were considered to be significant as p≤0.05, meanwhile a tendency toward significance was declared at 0.10>p>0.05.
A significant M/L location effect was showed by the two-way ANOVA in three morphological parameters: the number of primary dendrites, bifurcations and branches, accompanied by a tendency toward significance (p value = 0.05) in the total dendritic length ( Fig. 6 D, Supplementary Tab. 2 ).
Effects were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and a tendency toward significance was considered at a value of P > 0.05 to P < 0.10.
Also, medical history or demographics variables that showed a tendency toward significance (p < 0.05) in the univariate analysis were entered as explanatory variables in the logistic regression model.
We also note the presence of higher CGI values in ASD patients compared with ADHD patients, with a tendency toward significance (4.69 ± 0.729, p = 0.051, ES = 0.771) ( Table 6 ). 3.5.
Regarding the medical and ARD-specific variables, the presence of diabetes as comorbidity resulted in a two-fold increase in COVID-19 risk with a tendency toward significance (aOR 2.14, 95% CI 1.0–4.6, p = 0.051).
As a supplementary analysis, a simple linear regression analysis with EBA-specific teapot effect as the dependent variable and with the difference in RT between teapots and cars (in the pre_TMS phase) as an independent variable showed that the constant term was significantly >0 [ t (24) = 2.11, P = 0.023 1-tailed], whereas the same analysis on IES showed a tendency toward significance [t(24) = 1.70, P = 0.051 1-tailed].
In addition, effect of CRF-induced PNS had a very strong tendency toward significance ( P = 0.051), meaning that CRF-induced PNS, one stressor, had more of an impact on males than females.
Two-way ANOVA for the total object exploration time on the testing trial indicated no significant effect of the treatment (F (2,51) = 0.909, p = 0.409), a tendency toward significance for the stress effect (F (1,51) = 3.959, p = 0.052) and no significant effect for the interaction between the two factors (F (2,51) = 0.567, p = 0.571).
Peak IMC values significantly increased across motor adaptation blocks and returned to baseline in complete washout in AD-PD, PD-BB, and PD-FCR (1 way repeated measures ANOVA F values all > 3.150; p values all < 0.045; Table 2 ), whereas there was a tendency toward significance for muscle pair PD-TB ( F = 2.621, p = 0.052).
However, a tendency toward significance ( p = 0.052) was observed at week 12 in the severity of dizziness, with three more participants reporting minimal and one participant rating slight severity of dizziness, with most of the change observed in the PE-1000 group.
Univariate analysis identified significant time effects in ratings of appetite satisfaction ( p = 0.011, ηp 2 = 0.086, moderate effect) and hunger ( p = 0.009, ηp 2 = 0.086, moderate effect) and a tendency toward significance in hunger ratings ( p = 0.053, ηp 2 = 0.057, small effect). 3.7.2.
There was a significant effect of birth type ( p = 0.0029) and a tendency toward significance for supplementation ( p = 0.0539) ( Table 5 ). 3.7.
Worth mentioning is a tendency toward significance ( p = 0.054) between the SA-Low and SA-High groups in the recovery sample (S2), within the CR-Low group.
Analyses for SA For the left IFG, later AoA was associated with higher SA at both time points in bilinguals of the total sample (for t1 only showing a tendency toward significance: unstandardized coefficient B = 3.118; standard error = 1.597; p = 0.054; t2: unstandardized coefficient B = 3.654; standard error = 1.607; p = 0.025) as well as in bilinguals of the older subsample (t1: unstandardized coefficient B = 4.152; standard error = 1.897; p = 0.032; t2: unstandardized coefficient B = 4.905; standard error = 1.861; p = 0.011).