Barely Significant
← all phrases

“trending toward significance”

581 sentences · 581 papers · 682 search hits before verification

In the literature

trending toward significancep = 0.010.2× alpha
Conversion of pre-NAC biomarker profiles of HR+HER2– and HR+HER2+ to triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) post-NAC may be associated with worse event-free survival, hazard ratios of 2.23 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.90–5.53; p = 0.08), trending toward significance, and 36.7 (95 % CI, 2.2–610.8; p = 0.01), respectively.
trending toward significancep = 0.0190.4× alpha
Similarly, the ASD group's performance with subject-what questions varied across visits, reaching significance at visit 3 but then trending toward significance only at visit 5 [visit 3: t (13) = 2.30, p = 0.019; visit 4: t (13) = 0.807, p = 0.217; visit 5: t (11) = 1.58, p = 0.07; visit 6: t (10) = 0.857, p = 0.206; see Figure 2B ].
marginally significantP = 0.040.8× alphagold
trending toward significanceP = 0.0541.1× alpha
Upon final analysis, there was significant benefit for SG in patients with the two highest quartiles of TROP2 expression (220–275 and 275–300), The interaction between treatment and continuous TROP2 expression for OS was marginally significant (range, P = 0.04–0.05), and the interaction between treatment and TROP2 H -score expression by quartiles for OS was trending toward significance ( P = 0.054).
marginally significantP = .040.8× alphagold
trending toward significanceP = .0541.1× alpha
Interaction between treatment and continuous Trop-2 expression for OS was marginally significant (range, P = .04 to 0.05); interaction between treatment and Trop-2 H-score quartiles for OS was trending toward significance ( P = .054; Data Supplement, Table S5).
trending toward significanceP = 0.051.0× alpha
Without acute attack with 2 significant subscales (PF and BP, P = 0.04) and 1 subscale trending toward significance than with acute attack group (GH with P = 0.05) and a lower PCS composite score ( P = 0.001), one variable was associated with better QOL in the RP, working status (score of 35.42 for stay at home versus 88.33 for working; P = 0.02), as shown in Tables 3 and 4 .
20 Though our study did not find a statistically significant increase in the Knowledge and Screening content domain between the pre- and post-test, the result was very close to being statistically significant ( p = 0.0506), which indicates the result was trending toward significance.