from the world's big

thinkers

# A borderline definite marginally mild notably numerically increasing suggestively verging on significant result

Matthew Hankins over at *Psychologically Flawed* has harvested an amusing list of quotes from studies that failed to find a significant result:

a borderline significant trend (p=0.09) |

a clear trend (p<0.09) |

a clear, strong trend (p=0.09) |

a decreasing trend (p=0.09) |

a definite trend (p=0.08) |

a favorable trend (p=0.09) |

a favourable statistical trend (p=0.09) |

a little significant (p<0.1) |

a marginal trend (p=0.09) |

a marked trend (p=0.07) |

a mild trend (p<0.09) |

a near-significant trend (p=0.07) |

a negative trend (p=0.09) |

a nonsignificant trend (p<0.1) |

a notable trend (p<0.1) |

a numerical increasing trend (p=0.09) |

a numerical trend (p=0.09) |

a positive trend (p=0.09) |

a possible trend (p=0.09) |

a pronounced trend (p=0.09) |

a reliable trend (p=0.058) |

a significant trend (p=0.09) |

a slight trend (p<0.09) |

a slightly increasing trend (p=0.09) |

a small trend (p=0.09) |

a statistical trend (p=0.09) |

a strong trend (p=0.077) |

a suggestive trend (p=0.06) |

a weak trend (p=0.09) |

a weak trend (p=0.09) |

a worrying trend (p=0.07) |

all but significant (p=0.055) |

almost became significant (p=0.06) |

almost but not quite significant (p=0.06) |

almost reached statistical significance (p=0.06) |

almost significant (p=0.06) |

almost significant tendency (p=0.06) |

almost statistically significant (p=0.06) |

an associative trend (p=0.09) |

an expected trend (p=0.08) |

an increasing trend (p<0.09) |

an inverse trend toward signiﬁcance (p=0.06) |

an observed trend (p=0.06) |

an unexpected trend (p=0.09) |

an unexplained trend (p=0.09) |

approached acceptable levels of statistical significance (p=0.054) |

approached but did not quite achieve significance (p>0.05) |

approached but fell short of significance (p=0.07) |

approached conventional levels of significance (p<0.10) |

approached near significance (p=0.06) |

approached our criterion of significance (p>0.08) |

approached significant (p=0.11) |

approached the borderline of significance (p=0.07) |

approached the level of signiﬁcance (p=0.09) |

approached trend levels of significance (p0.05) |

approached, but did reach, significance (p=0.065) |

approaches but fails to achieve a customary level of statistical significance (p=0.154) |

approaches statistical significance (p>0.06) |

approaching significance (p=0.09) |

approximately significant (p=0.053) |

approximating significance (p=0.09) |

arguably significant (p=0.07) |

as good as significant (p=0.0502) |

at the brink of significance (p=0.06) |

at the cusp of significance (p=0.06) |

at the edge of significance (p=0.055) |

at the margin of significance (p=0.056) |

at the margin of statistical significance (p<0.07) |

at the very edge of significance (p=0.053) |

barely significant (p=0.07) |

better trends of improvement (p=0.056) |

bordered on a statistically significant value (p=0.06) |

bordered on being significant (p>0.07) |

bordered on being statistically significant (p=0.0502) |

bordered on but was not less than the accepted level of significance (p>0.05) |

bordered on significant (p=0.09) |

borderline level of statistical significance (p=0.053) |

borderline signiﬁcant (p=0.09) |

close to a marginally significant level (p=0.06) |

close to being significant (p=0.06) |

close to being statistically signiﬁcant (p=0.055) |

close to borderline signiﬁcance (p=0.072) |

close to the boundary of significance (p=0.06) |

closely approaches the brink of signiﬁcance (p=0.07) |

closely approaches the statistical significance (p=0.0669) |

closely approximating significance (p>0.05) |

closely significant (p=0.058) |

close-to-signiﬁcant (p=0.09) |

did not quite achieve acceptable levels of statistical significance (p=0.054) |

did not quite achieve significance (p=0.076) |

did not quite achieve the conventional levels of significance (p=0.052) |

did not quite achieve the threshold for statistical significance (p=0.08) |

did not quite attain conventional levels of significance (p=0.07) |

did not quite reach a statistically significant level (p=0.108) |

did not quite reach statistical significance (p=0.063) |

did not reach the traditional level of signiﬁcance (p=0.10) |

did not reach the usually accepted level of clinical significance (p=0.07) |

difference was apparent (p=0.07) |

direction heading towards significance (p=0.10) |

does not reach the conventional significance level (p=0.098) |

effectively significant (p=0.051) |

essentially significant (p=0.10) |

extremely close to signiﬁcance (p=0.07) |

failed to reach significance on this occasion (p=0.09) |

failed to reach statistical significance (p=0.06) |

fairly close to significance (p=0.065) |

fairly significant (p=0.09) |

falls just short of standard levels of statistical significance (p=0.06) |

fell barely short of significance (p=0.08) |

fell just short of statistical significance (p=0.12) |

fell narrowly short of significance (p=0.0623) |

fell only marginally short of significance (p=0.0879) |

felt short of significance (p=0.07) |

flirting with conventional levels of significance (p>0.1) |

heading towards significance (p=0.086) |

highly significant (p=0.09) |

hint of significance (p>0.05) |

hovered around signiﬁcance (p = 0.061) |

hovered at nearly a significant level (p=0.058) |

hovering closer to statistical significance (p=0.076) |

hovers on the brink of significance (p=0.055) |

in the edge of significance (p=0.059) |

inconclusively significant (p=0.070) |

indeterminate significance (p=0.08) |

indicative significance (p=0.08) |

just about significant (p=0.051) |

just above the margin of significance (p=0.053) |

just barely below the level of significance (p=0.06) |

just barely insignificant (p=0.11) |

just beyond significance (p=0.06) |

just escaped significance (p=0.07) |

just failed significance (p=0.057) |

just failed to be significant (p=0.072) |

just failed to reach statistical significance (p=0.06) |

just failing to reach statistical significance (p=0.06) |

just fails to reach conventional levels of statistical significance (p=0.07) |

just lacked significance (p=0.053) |

just missed being statistically significant (p=0.06) |

just missing significance (p=0.07) |

just over the limits of statistical significance (p=0.06) |

just short of significance (p=0.07) |

just shy of significance (p=0.053) |

just skirting the boundary of significance (p=0.052) |

just tottering on the brink of significance at the 0.05 level |

leaning towards significance (p=0.15) |

leaning towards statistical significance (p=0.06) |

loosely significant (p=0.10) |

marginal significance (p=0.07) |

marginally insignificant (p=0.08) |

marginally nonsignificant (p=0.096) |

marginally significant (p>=0.1) |

marginally significant tendency (p=0.08) |

marginally statistically significant (p=0.08) |

may not be signiﬁcant (p=0.06) |

mildly signiﬁcant (p=0.07) |

moderately significant (p>0.11) |

modestly significant (p=0.09) |

near limit significance (p=0.073) |

near miss of statistical significance (p>0.1) |

near nominal significance (p=0.064) |

near significance (p=0.07) |

near to statistical significance (p=0.056) |

near/possible significance(p=0.0661) |

near-borderline significance (p=0.10) |

near-certain signiﬁcance (p=0.07) |

nearly approaches statistical significance (p=0.079) |

nearly borderline significance (p=0.052) |

nearly reached a significant level (p=0.07) |

nearly reaching the level of significance (p<0.06) |

nearly significant (p=0.06) |

nearly significant tendency (p=0.06) |

nearly, but not quite significant (p>0.06) |

near-marginal significance (p=0.18) |

near-significant (p=0.09) |

near-to-significance (p=0.093) |

near-trend significance (p=0.11) |

nominally significant (p=0.08) |

non-insignificant result (p=0.500) |

non-significant in the statistical sense (p>0.05 |

not absolutely significant but very probably so (p>0.05) |

not as significant (p=0.06) |

not clearly significant (p=0.08) |

not completely significant (p=0.07) |

not conventionally significant (p=0.089), but.. |

not currently significant (p=0.06) |

not decisively significant (p=0.106) |

not entirely significant (p=0.10) |

not exactly significant (p=0.052) |

not formally significant (p=0.06) |

not fully significant (p=0.085) |

not highly significant (p=0.089) |

not insignificant (p=0.056) |

not markedly significant (p=0.06) |

not non-significant (p>0.1) |

not numerically significant (p>0.05) |

not overly significant (p>0.08) |

not quite borderline significance (p>=0.089) |

not quite reach the level of significance (p=0.07) |

not quite significant (p=0.118) |

not quite within the conventional bounds of statistical significance (p=0.12) |

not reliably signiﬁcant (p=0.091) |

not significant by conventional standards (p=0.10) |

not significant in the narrow sense of the word (p=0.29) |

not significantly significant but..clinically meaningful (p=0.072) |

not strictly significant (p=0.06) |

not strictly speaking significant (p=0.057) |

not strongly significant (p=0.08) |

not technically significant (p=0.06) |

not that significant (p=0.08) |

not too distant from statistical significance at the 10% level |

not too far from significant at the 10% level |

not totally significant (p=0.09) |

not very definitely significant (p=0.08) |

not very significant (p=0.1) |

not wholly significant (p>0.1) |

not yet significant (p=0.09) |

noticeably signiﬁcant (p=0.055) |

on the boundary of signiﬁcance (p=0.055) |

on the brink of significance (p=0.052) |

on the cusp of conventional statistical significance (p=0.054) |

on the cusp of significance (p=0.058) |

on the edge of significance (p>0.08) |

on the limit to significant (p=0.06) |

on the margin of significance (p=0.051) |

only a little short of significance (p>0.05) |

only just insignificant (p>0.10) |

only just missed significance at the 5% level |

only slightly less than significant (p=0.08) |

only slightly non-signiﬁcant (p=0.0738) |

partial significance (p>0.09) |

partially significant (p=0.08) |

partly significant (p=0.08) |

possibly significant (0.05<p>0.10) |

potentially significant (p>0.1) |

practically significant (p=0.06) |

probably not significant (p>0.25) |

provisionally significant (p=0.073) |

quasi-significant (p=0.09) |

quite close to significance at the 10% level (p=0.104) |

quite significant (p=0.07) |

rather marginal significance (p>0.10) |

reached near significance (p=0.07) |

reasonably significant (p=0.07) |

remarkably close to significance (p=0.05009) |

resides on the edge of significance (p=0.10) |

roughly significant (p>0.1) |

scarcely significant (0.05<p>0.1) |

significant at the .07 level |

significant tendency (p=0.09) |

significant to some degree (0<p>1) |

significant, or close to significant effects (p=0.08, p=0.05) |

significantly better overall (p=0.051) |

significantly significant (p=0.065) |

similar but not nonsigniﬁcant trends (p>0.05) |

slight non-significance (p=0.06) |

slight significance (p=0.128) |

slight tendency toward significance (p=0.086) |

slightly exceeded signiﬁcance level (p=0.06) |

slightly failed to reach statistical signiﬁcance (p=0.061) |

slightly insignificant (p=0.07) |

slightly marginally significant (p=0.06) |

slightly significant (p=0.09) |

somewhat marginally significant (p>0.055) |

somewhat short of significance (p=0.07) |

somewhat significant (p=0.23) |

strong trend toward significance (p=0.08) |

sufficiently close to significance (p = 0.07) |

suggestive of a significant trend (p=0.08) |

suggestive of statistical significance (p=0.06) |

suggestively significant (p=0.064) |

tantalisingly close to significance (p=0.104) |

teetering on the brink of significance (p=0.06) |

tend to significant (p>0.1) |

tended to approach significance (p=0.09) |

tended to be significant (p=0.06) |

tended toward significance (p=0.13) |

tendency toward significance (p approaching 0.1) |

tendency toward statistical significance (p=0.07) |

tends to approach signiﬁcance (p=0.12) |

tentatively signiﬁcant (p=0.107) |

too far from signiﬁcance (p=0.12) |

trend bordering on statistical significance (p=0.066) |

trend in a significant direction (p=0.09) |

trend in the direction of significance (p=0.089) |

trend toward (p>0.07) |

trending towards significance (p>0.15) |

trending towards significant (p=0.099) |

uncertain significance (p>0.07) |

vaguely significant (p>0.2) |

verging on significance (p=0.056) |

very close to significant (p=0.11) |

very closely approaches the conventional significance level (p=0.055) |

very nearly significant (p=0.0656) |

very slightly non-significant (p=0.10) |

virtually significant (p=0.059) |

weak significance (p>0.10) |

weak trend toward significance (p=0.12) |

weakened..significance (p=0.06) |

weakly non-significant (p=0.07) |

weakly significant (p=0.11) |

well-nigh signiﬁcant (p=0.11) |

We can umm and ahh all day about how to describe a not significant result and where words begin to become misleading but the important thing is that these studies were published and didn’t disappear into the file drawer.

For a great set of further reading on the topic check out Chris Chambers’ lecture slides from a lecture a couple of days ago at Sussex University. Also in case you missed it, check out my post from earlier this week The Mystery of the Missing Experiments which seems to be generating a somewhat fascinating discussion in the comments.

*To keep up to date with this blog you can follow Neurobonkers on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, RSS or join the mailing list.*

*Image Credit: Shutterstock/Anisha Creations*

## Is the universe a graveyard? This theory suggests humanity may be alone.

### Ever since we've had the technology, we've looked to the stars in search of alien life. It's assumed that we're looking because we want to find other life in the universe, but what if we're looking to make sure there isn't any?

Here's an equation, and a rather distressing one at that: *N* = *R _{*}*

_{ }×

*f*

_{P }×

*n*

_{e }×

*f*

_{1}×

*f*

_{i }×

*f*

_{c}×

*L*. It's the Drake equation, and it describes the number of alien civilizations in our galaxy with whom we might be able to communicate. Its terms correspond to values such as the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of planets on which life could emerge, the fraction of planets that can support intelligent life, and so on. Using conservative estimates, the minimum result of this equation is 20. There ought to be 20 intelligent alien civilizations in the Milky Way that we can contact and who can contact us. But there aren't any.

## The key to better quality education? Make students feel valued.

Building a personal connection with students can counteract some negative side effects of remote learning.

- Not being able to engage with students in-person due to the pandemic has presented several new challenges for educators, both technical and social. Digital tools have changed the way we all think about learning, but George Couros argues that more needs to be done to make up for what has been lost during "emergency remote teaching."
- One interesting way he has seen to bridge that gap and strengthen teacher-student and student-student relationships is through an event called Identity Day. Giving students the opportunity to share something they are passionate about makes them feel more connected and gets them involved in their education.
- "My hope is that we take these skills and these abilities we're developing through this process and we actually become so much better for our kids when we get back to our face-to-face setting," Couros says. He adds that while no one can predict the future, we can all do our part to adapt to it.

## Study details the negative environmental impact of online shopping

Frequent shopping for single items adds to our carbon footprint.

- A new study shows e-commerce sites like Amazon leave larger greenhouse gas footprints than retail stores.
- Ordering online from retail stores has an even smaller footprint than going to the store yourself.
- Greening efforts by major e-commerce sites won't curb wasteful consumer habits. Consolidating online orders can make a difference.

A pile of recycled cardboard sits on the ground at Recology's Recycle Central on January 4, 2018 in San Francisco, California.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

<p>A large part of the reason is speed. In a competitive market, pure players use the equation, <em>speed + convenience</em>, to drive adoption. This is especially relevant to the "last mile" GHG footprint: the distance between the distribution center and the consumer.</p><p>Interestingly, the smallest GHG footprint occurs when you order directly from a physical store—even smaller than going there yourself. Pure players, such as Amazon, are the greatest offenders. Variables like geographic location matter; the team looked at shopping in the UK, the US, China, and the Netherlands. </p><p>Sadegh Shahmohammadi, a PhD student at the Netherlands' Radboud University and corresponding author of the paper, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/tech/greenhouse-gas-emissions-retail/index.html" target="_blank">says</a> the above "pattern holds true in countries where people mostly drive. It really depends on the country and consumer behavior there."</p><p>The researchers write that this year-and-a-half long study pushes back on previous research that claims online shopping to be better in terms of GHG footprints.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"They have, however, compared the GHG emissions per shopping event and did not consider the link between the retail channels and the basket size, which leads to a different conclusion than that of the current study."</p><p>Online retail is where convenience trumps environment: people tend to order one item at a time when shopping on pure player sites, whereas they stock up on multiple items when visiting a store. Consumers will sometimes order a number of separate items over the course of a week rather than making one trip to purchase everything they need. </p><p>While greening efforts by online retailers are important, until a shift in consumer attitude changes, the current carbon footprint will be a hard obstacle to overcome. Amazon is trying to have it both ways—carbon-free and convenience addicted—and the math isn't adding up. If you need to order things, do it online, but try to consolidate your purchases as much as possible.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>## Childhood sleeping problems may signal mental disorders later in life

Chronic irregular sleep in children was associated with psychotic experiences in adolescence, according to a recent study out of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology.