Non-significance

The threshold value for screening out non significant AE sources is calculated on the basis of the mean (m) and of the standard deviation (a) TH = (m+Na), where N is an input floating variable. 

Here are the HOMO and LUMO for ethylene (some non-significant lines have been removed from the output) ... 

A fivefold variation in added iodide ion concentration produced no detectable trend in the rate coefficients, which had the mean value 99+10 at 20 °C, and therefore nucleophilic attack of iodide ion on tin appears kinetically non-significant. 

Table 10.1 Comparison of requirements for investigations involving non-significant risk versus significant risk devices.

NSR = non-significant risk device investigations SR = S = sponsor I = investigator. 

None of the elemental data show any correlation with collagen yield. When compared to yield, the correlation coefficients are non-significant for C N (r = 0.4), %C (r = 0.4) and %N (r = 0.2). All samples with low elemental values are from layers of bone that showed poor histological preservation. While low values tend to come from bone with poor histological preservation, many samples from bone of equally poor preservation produced acceptable values. Lipid removal generally improved both the yield characteristics and elemental values. 

Methods that produced results not significantly different from the method with the minimal MAE received rank 1, i.e. all methods with rank 1 had a similar best performance. After determination of this group, the remaining methods with results significantly better than those of MLOGP or AAM received rank 11 and 111, respectively. Methods that had an MAE non-significantly different from (or even worse than) AAM received rank IV. 

Low-molecular-weight heparins and heparinoids are not recommended in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.11 A meta-analysis was performed using data from 10 randomized controlled trials.19 A non-significant decrease in combined death and disability and a non-significant increase in case fatality and hemorrhage were seen. A reduction in venous thromboembolic events was observed in acute stroke patients however, there was also an increase in extracranial bleeding. 

Breast cancer was not increased in the ERT arm of the WHI, and in fact, the risk was non-significantly lower in the ERT group than in the placebo group.21 These conflicting data point to a possible link of progestin with breast cancer risk however, this theory needs to be studied further. 

Hunter and Grant (1971) showed that the magnitude of the altitude effect on yield varied with season. In spring, yields were decreased by some 5% for every 30.5 m rise in altitude and in autumn by 1.8%. In summer, yield trends were non-significant or reversed, highest yields sometimes occurring at the higher altitudes. This result was related to the development of moisture stress at lower altitudes. 

In a Norwegian study, Van Dusseldorp et al.21 randomly assigned 64 women and men to consume either 6 cups/day of boiled coffee, 6 cups/ day of boiled coffee that was subsequently also paper-filtered, or to abstain from coffee for 79 days. Boiled coffee intake increased cholesterol levels significantly by 0.55 mmol/L (21 mg/dL), compared to non-significant changes in both of the other groups. Examination of the paper filters used in this study indicated that 88% of the fatty-material present in the boiled coffee was trapped by the paper filter. 

The rank is the number of significant singular values. The significance level can be estimated as the first non-significant singular value of the total matrix Y. 

As can be seen from the figure the relationship between the immission concentration (dotted line) and the odour annoyance is very poor. The correlation coefficient (r=(). 12) is statistically non-significant. 

In a nested case-control study of cancers associated with chemical exposures in the wood industry, Kauppinen et al. (1986) found a significantly increased risk of respiratory system cancer associated with exposure to phenol and phenol in wood dust. As is often the case in occupational settings, these exposures were confounded by smoking and exposures to other materials like pesticides. The increased risk observed for exposure to phenol was almost 5-fold (odds ratio of 4.94), but showed no dose-related increase. This risk dropped to 4-fold with adjustments for smoking history, and to less than 3-fold (and non-significant) when workers exposed to both phenols and pesticides were excluded from the analysis. 

---