Excerpts

There was a negative effect of the abbreviated brand name on intention to purchase, but it was only borderline significant ( p = 0.05). 4.

For the unstable force platform, the SD along the AP axis with eyes open has shown a marginally significant effect of training (F(1, 26) = 4.17; p = 0.05) and a significant interaction of training and group effects (F(1, 26) = 7.40; p = 0.01).

We identified a decreasing trend in the gap between females and males: from 4.53 years in 2008, to 4.12 years in 2018, which was statistically significant (t-value = −7.67, p < 0.05).

We also found a marginally significant difference in knowledge change across gender identity (H = 6.44, p < 0.05), with respondents who responded with an identity other than male or female (which includes both non-conforming/non-binary and those who preferred not to answer) reporting the greatest change between pre- and post-assessments (mean rank = 182.34).

Patients with stage IV disease also had a worse prognosis in DSS, but this did not reach statistical significance in this model (aHR = 2.566, 95% CI: 0.999–6.594, p = 0.05; Table 3 ).

Finally, as can be seen in Table 2 , the mediation analyses highlighted marginally significant indirect effects from T1 and T2 domestic violence victimization to T3 and T4 bullying perpetration through T2 and T3 CDs, respectively (β = 0.01, p < 0.05, 95% C.I.s [0.002, 0.017] and [0.002, 0.018], respectively).

The results ( Table 3 ) suggested that the group variable was not a significant predictor of job satisfaction at T2 ( p > 0.05) but was a marginally significant one at T3 ( p = 0.050), whereas age, gender, job tenure, education, and marriage were not significant at either interval ( p > 0.05).

After 24 h contact, there is still no difference between (B) and (A) samples, while it appeared a highly significant difference among the studied GCs (two-way ANOVA test, p = 0.05).

Psychosocial Function While change in TBI-QoL scores approached significance, 11 out of 15 mentees demonstrated increases in quality of life (V = 25, p = 0.050).

There was a weakly significant interaction between time and MPSS ( p = 0.05) ( Table 4 ).

However, when this information was stratified by gender, the results showed, in a slightly significant way, that women within the control group spent more hours than those in the case group (116.4 vs. 101.1; p = 0.05).

Furthermore, the N 2 O fluxes increased markedly with increasing soil moisture, with differences in N 2 O fluxes among the three soil moisture levels being highly significant ( p < 0.05).

The only difference was observed for the significance levels—the NC study found the difference to be highly significant ( p = 0.0004) while our study found a moderately significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 level.

Furthermore, Discomfort was marginally significant ( p > 0.05), which meant that girls felt more comfortable than boys during their social performance.

The difference in SE for competence was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

A borderline significant interaction was also found for KTK single-lever jumps (F = 4.1, p = 0.05).

The mediation analysis highlighted a marginally significant indirect effect from T1 exposure to community violence as a witness to T3 bullying perpetration through T2 CDs, β = 0.02, t = 1.96, p = 0.05, 95% C.I.

Among females, the model accounted for 7% of the variance in depressive symptoms; however, only screen-based sedentary behavior was the marginally significant predictor (β = 0.14, p = 0.05).

However, it must be noted that in our meta-analysis the latter study was borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

A positive trend, i.e., a decrease in the number of years of life lost, was noted for cervical cancer (AAPC = −2.1%, p < 0.05), liver cancer (AAPC = −2.5%, p < 0.05), stomach cancer (AAPC = −1.6%, p < 0.05) and leukaemia (AAPC = −1.0, p < 0.05).

Further, based on the nominally significant (single CpG site p -value < 0.05) CpGs within each of the DMRs, there was a general trend towards consistent association directions with increasing BTEX exposure for the DMRs.

This difference was borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

The relationship between intellectual functioning and the practical domain in our sample was moderately significant (r = 0.453, p < 0.05) and in line with the results of the meta-analysis of Alexander and Reynolds [ 14 ], whereas no significant correlations between intellectual functioning and the social functioning domain could be found in our sample.

The other two variables indicating socioeconomic position (housing and household assets) were also statistically significant ( p < 0.001) and showed a positive trend ( p < 0.05).

After the formal implementation of the reform, DIT in Dingyuan County changed significantly and showed an increasing trend (0.24, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.45, p -value < 0.05).