Excerpts

We found an almost significant increase in the presence of extracellular lipid deposition and fibrous cap ( p = 0.0567 and p = 0.0502, respectively) in the HFFD group (vs.

On the other hand, there was only a marginally significant association between SUVmax and pMAPK positivity (p = 0.0568).

Interestingly, in both Aymara and Quechua, when compared to the standard demographic model, Tajima’s D values are marginally significant (P values = 0.0568 and 0.0565, S2C Fig ) around chr10:82.0~82.3 Mb, and Fay and Wu’s H values are significant in both highlander groups in the same region (P values = 0.014 and 0.0212, S2D Fig ).

Among those with HCV co-infection, the test for trend moving from those with undetectable HCV RNA to those with high HCV RNA was marginally statistically significant (p = 0.057).

The difference between the medical and the financial domain was marginally significant ( B = -0.355, p = .057).

For disease-specific death, the increased risk was estimated to 52.1%, however of borderline significance (HR 1.521, 95% CI 0.988–2.342, p = 0.057).

We also showed a trend of lower R 2 * in WM (f = 3.08, p = 0.057).

Again, when adding the luminal-HER2 patient group, the effect of the IGF1R-alpha and EGFR combination on DFS was not altered (HR = 0.845, 95% CI: 0.648–1.101, p = 0.212, interaction test p = 0.593) while on OS it was (HR = 0.802, 95% CI: 0.583–1.102, p = 0.174, interaction test p = 0.057– marginally statistically significant).

The number of metastatic lesions affected PFS with a statistical trend (P = 0.057).

Extraversion scores also correlated with the absolute number of chills experienced by each individual in our experiment (Spearman’s ρ = 0.28, p = 0.046), whereas the correlation between the extraversion scores and the number of chills experienced per minute just failed to reach significance (Sperman’s ρ = 0.26, p = 0.057).

Latencies In the analysis of latencies, the effect of prime type was only marginally significant by participants [F(1,35) = 3.88; MSe = 4718.14, p = .057; F(1,163) = 2.45, ns].

In the promotion focus model, the predictor chronic promotion focus achieved significance ( B = .12, SE = .06, p = .043) and the chronic promotion state-trait interaction achieved marginal significance ( B = -.16, SE = .09, p = .057; all other | Bs| < .07, all ps > .14).

Post-hoc comparisons showed that the reduction in velocity between W and WOD was statistically significant (p = 0.011) and the reduction between W and WO approached significance (p = 0.057).

In TL fish, there was a strong trend towards a medium-sized effect of older fish swimming less than younger fish (P = 0.057, η 2 = 0.064) with no effect of sex (P = 0.32) or an interaction (P = 0.12).

In the coronal plane, the markerless system matched the marker-based system in the “upright” (R 2 0.799, p < 0.001), “palms” (R 2 0.454, p < 0.008), “elbows, extended knees” (R 2 0.639, p < 0.001), “elbows, bent knees” (R 2 0.714, p < 0.001), “squat” (R 2 0.653, p < 0.015), and “B-Ball” (R 2 0.630, p < 0.001) positions, with a trend towards significance in “all-4s” (R 2 0.270, p < 0.057).

When the association between DPB1 and GPA/PR3-AAV was examined, DPB1*04 : 01 (the risk allele for GPA in European populations) also showed a trend for association with predisposition to PR3-AAV in the Japanese population (P = 0.057, OR = 1.89, 95%CI: 1.03–3.45) ( Table 4 ).

We also found a nominally significant ( p = 0.057) 2.1% decrease in methylation at one cytosine (chr17:46706661) in the Pex6 DMR.

In general, though only approaching significance, participants exhibited higher variations in the GEM direction in the DT-paper ( p = 0.057) condition compared to the ST condition, while these variations slightly increased in the DT-phone ( p = 0.197) and DT-glass ( p = 0.374) conditions ( Fig 6 , top).

We did, however, find a marginally significant relationship between Covid knowledge asymmetry and anxiety, b = .06, SE = .03, 95% CI: [-.002, .12], t (1021) = 1.90, p = .057 (H1D).

001, η 2 p = .86, and a marginally significant effect of Action-effect mapping, F (1, 38) = 3.87, p = .057, η 2 p = .092, but the interaction between these two factors was not significant, F (4, 152) = 1.39, p = .24, η 2 p = .035.

This effect was attenuated in SPS rats, which was suggested by a stress x fraction interaction that approached significance [F (1,14) = 4.307, p = .057].

An almost significant between-subject effect was found for Clarity, F (1,15) = 4.265, p = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.221, and a significant effect for Engagement, F (1,15) = 4.957, p = 0.042, η p 2 = 0.248, and Gender, F (1,15) = 9.521, p = 0.008, η p 2 = 0.388, females have higher RR, while participants with higher RR have higher Engagement but possibly lower Clarity.

significantly smaller than with fura-6F alone (P = 0.009), and slightly smaller than with fura-6F and EGTA (P = 0.08).” (PMID 18832426) “The correlation becomes only marginally significant if the single experiment with the largest effect is removed (r = 0.41, P = 0.057, n = 22).” (PMID 17916607) Implied or gross spin (i.e. spin other than interpreting p-values between 0.05 and 0.1 as trends or statistically significant) was noted incidentally in papers before (n = 10) and after (n = 9) the editorial advice was published.

Additionally, in the ipsilateral workspace, this difference was also modulated by the which hand is used factor (F(1,26) = 4.553, p = .042, η 2 p = .149) suggesting that the group difference was nearly significant only when comparing participants having used the left hand to perform the task (F(1,10) = 4.623, p = .057, η 2 p = .316; CRPS patients: M = -3.59% ± 4.83%; control participants: M = -0.76% ± 2.23%).

There was a marginally significant effect of age on mechanism level responses, F(2,121) = 2.936, p = .057, η p 2 = .046.