Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

near significanceP = 0.0521.0× alphagold
Vocal and color signals The probability of emitting estrus calls was associated with reproductive status (LRT: X 2 = 13.33, Δdf = 4, P = 0.001, see Table C in S1 File for further details), decreasing significantly between the pre-conceptive period and the first month of pregnancy (GLMM: z = -3.19, P = 0.001, Fig 2B ), and then increasing again to near significance from the first to the second month of pregnancy (GLMM: z = 1.94, P = 0.052, Fig 2B , see Table D in S1 File for further details).
marginally significantp = .0521.0× alphagold
After removing the non-significant interaction term from the regression, a main effect of race was found for the R hippocampus (B = -.17; p = .012), L hippocampus (B = -.20; p = .003), and was marginally significant for the L amygdala (B = -.13; p = .052), wherein Whites had greater volumes than AAs.
nearly significantp = 0.0521.0× alphagold
Among T-implanted females, there was no detectable correlation between plasma T levels and the number of days elapsed since implantation (Pearson’s r = −0.27, n = 10, p = 0.44), and there was a nearly significant positive correlation between female aggression score and the number of days elapsed since implantation (Pearson’s r = 0.55, n = 13, p = 0.052), suggesting that, if anything, the behavioral effect of the T implant increased over time, rather than decreased.
near significancep = .0521.0× alphagold
Third, there was a recurrent interaction effect between identifiability and manipulation group for three measures: personal distress, F (1, 1624) = 4.09, p = .043, n p 2 = .003, sympathy, F (1, 1624) = 4.75, p = .029, n p 2 = .003, and empathic concern, F (1, 1624) = 8.80, p = .003, n p 2 = .005, and near significance for distress ( p = .052).
marginally significantp = .0521.0× alphagold
When comparing the scores provided by the LIWC, the results of the test indicated that participants came up with marginally significant more negative words in the rumination ( Mdn = 9.31) than in the control condition ( Mdn = 5.26), U = 331.00, z = −1.94, p = .052, while the negativity scores from SentiWordNet were significantly higher in the rumination condition ( Mdn = 0.08) than in the control condition ( Mdn = .05), U = 303.50, z = −2.33, p = .020.