Barely Significant
← all phrases

“weakly significant”

1,388 sentences · 1,388 papers · 1,784 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.11

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

In the literature

weakly significantP = 0.061.2× alphaqualifiedgold
Despite the MSOM showing weakly significant pairwise co-occurrence ( α = 2.12 ± 1.11 SE , z = 1.90, P = 0.06; Table 3 ) between snow leopard and red fox, the results obtained from the predicted conditional occupancy of each species, based on the presence/absence of the interacting species, showed that the presence/absence of the red fox (i.e., first and second scenarios) did not affect the probability of occupancy of the snow leopard (red fox present: β = 0.47 ± 0.34 SE , CI95% = 1.74e−03 – 0.99; red fox absent: β = 0.46 ± 0.34 SE , CI95% = 2.78e−05 – 0.99) ( Supplementary Material 3 ).
weakly significantP = 0.061.2× alphaqualifiedgold
A weakly significant species (within competition)× 15 N solution interaction for 15 N molar excess in shoot biomass ( F 2,34 = 3.0, P = 0.06) provided evidence that our plant species displayed different N uptake preferences, and that plant species preferences were modified by inter-specific competition.
weakly significantP= 0.061.2× alphaqualifiedgold
l time - only 6% of patients with grade 3 and 4 were alive at 100 weeks following diagnosis compared to 89% of patients with grade 1 and 2 tumours. Sex of the astrocytoma patients, radiotherapy, chemotherapy or surgery did not significantly affect their survival (Table III), though surgery was weakly significant (P= 0.06).
weakly significantp = 0.0661.3× alphaqualifiedgold
The intervention resulted in a small but statistically significant effect in reducing the number of medicines (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.899–0.999, p = 0.045) and a weakly significant effect on potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.140–1.064, p = 0.066).
weakly significantp =0.0691.4× alphaqualifiedgold
Figure 2 also shows that the negative epistemic trust → perceived risks link was significant (β = −0.364, p < 0.001) and the positive epistemic trust → perceived benefits link was weakly significant (β = 0.067, p =0.069), but it was only significant at p = 0.10, hence, supporting Hypotheses 9 and 10.