The effect of ROI was near significance ( F 2, 17 = 2.991, P = .06), with the highest activity within the dACC ( Fig. 7E ).
Excerpts
For lexical syllables fu1 , fu4 , and fu6 , the contrast between fu1 and fu6 elicited a significant negative cluster with a time window during 102–188 ms (post-divergence point unless specified otherwise) typical of an MMN (sum-T = −7.92, p <.01), and a marginally significant positive cluster (232–350 ms; sum-T = 5.04, p = .060) in the control group, which can be considered a P3a.
marginally non-significantP = 0.06
Mean torpor frequency (i.e., percentage of days on which torpor was used) was 58.3 ± 18.1% (N = 122 bouts) in the deep shade treatment, 54.8 ± 20.3% (N = 124 bouts) in the partial shade treatment, and 27.8 ± 28.1% (N = 51 bouts) in the full sun treatment, with variation among the three treatments being marginally non-significant (LMM, F 1, 16 = 3.98, P = 0.06).
The interaction between emotion and location was still marginally significant, F (2,13) = 3.141, p = 0.060.
Training duration also predicted some of the distant outcomes: Vocabulary (partial r 2 = .09, p = .02) and Raven's Advanced PM, although only at a near-significant level (partial r 2 = .06, p = .06).
marginally non-significantP = 0.060
Contestants that ‘promised’ to split were more likely to do so (GLM: Wald χ 2 = 21.10, P<0.001), but their promises only had a marginally non-significant effect upon increasing the likelihood that their opponents split (GLM: Wald χ 2 = 3.53, P = 0.060).
This was qualified by a marginally significant interaction, F (3,292) = 2.39, p = .06, η p 2 = .03, Huynh-Feldt corrected ( Figure 4 ).
borderline significancep = 0.06
Low CD4 cell counts and concomitant LTNP status both had borderline significance (p = 0.06), while the CD4/CD8 ratio was not significant (p = 0.29).
This finding was marginally significant (p = 0.060, two-tailed, n = 34).
borderline significanceP = 0.06
Effects of condition on grams consumed In a repeated ANOVA measures analysis, there was a significant effect of condition (F(1.862) = 5.35, P = 0.01), food type (F(1) = 9.91, P = 0.006), and borderline significance in the interaction term (F(1.79) = 3.2, P = 0.06) in terms of total grams consumed.
Correlation between mRNA Levels of Cytokines and ET-1 in Alveolar Macrophages and Clinical and Hemodynamic Parameters in HF Patients When investigating the correlations between mRNA levels of ET-1 and the cytokines that were up-regulated in alveolar macrophages from HF patients (i.e., TNFα and IL-6) and clinical and hemodynamic parameters in these patients, we found a strong trend toward correlation between IL-6 mRNA levels and LV function [LV ejection fraction (EF); r = −0.53, p = 0.06].
The IVR rate in patients without manipulation during URS was not different to those with manipulation ( P = 0.658), and higher than those without URS although there was a statistically marginal significance ( P = 0.060, Fig 3 ).
Similarly, for the EEG data acquired simultaneously with the fMRI data, a marginally significant main effect of time-window was observed (F (4,48) = 2.42, p = 0.06), while the comparisons between the fifth and the first, second and third time windows approached statistical significance, or were statistical significant (p = 0.08, p = 0.03, and p = 0.02, respectively).
borderline significancep = 0.06
Women in Poland and Greece appeared less likely, while women in Ireland were more likely, to meet the WHO PA recommendations (borderline significance: p = 0.06 and p = 0.1, respectively; Fig 2 and S2 Table ). 30 min · d −1 PA recommendation When PA guidelines were defined as at least 3 0 min · d −1 of MVPA [ 5 ], prevalence estimates of meeting these guidelines were lower and ranged from 27.1% (Greece) to 46% (UK) for men and from 10.4% (Greece) to 25.6% (Ireland) for women.
The majority of the ueRA patients had similar frequencies of intermediate monocytes as HC, whereas a subgroup of the patients had elevated levels of this subset, which resulted in an overall trend towards increased frequency of intermediate monocytes in ueRA patients compared to HCs (p = 0.06).
marginally non-significantP = 0.06
The same trend, marginally non-significant, was observed in M . sativa ( t = -2.20, P = 0.06, S11 Table ).
marginally non-significantp = 0.060
After adjusting for confounders, the association remained robust for extraversion (B = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.04, 1.64; p = 0.039), whereas the association with conscientiousness decreased and became marginally non-significant (p = 0.060).
Overall, the correlation was not quite significant (Spearmann’s rho = −0.33, p = 0.06), though the correlation for warm stimulation was significant (rho = −0.655, p = 0.034).
approached significancep = 0.06
Regarding time spent inside the magazine during lever presentation on day 5 ( Fig 5B ), SEX was the only statistically significant factor [F(1,72) = 4.60, p < 0.05], whereas the interaction SEX x ELS x IMO approached significance [F(1,72) = 3.59, p = 0.06].
a trend towards significancep = 0.06
KLK15 mRNA levels showed a trend towards significance in case of OS (p = 0.06); KLK9 and KLK10 mRNA expression levels were not associated with patients’ outcome.
Among the remaining predictors, only the logarithm (log 10 ) of conscientiousness showed marginal significance ( b = 0.34, p = 0.06).
showed a trendp = 0.06
OSR2 mRNA overexpression (≥ median) showed a trend towards lower DFS rates (HR [CI] 4.54 [0.93; 22.16]; p = 0.06) and predicted significantly worse OS rates (HR [CI] 6.25 [1.37; 28.38]; p = 0.018).
approached significancep = 0.06
The Group×Trial-Type interaction approached significance (F(1,33) = 3.75, p = 0.06).
Significant increases in gene expression were observed by RT-qPCR for the microarray up-regulated genes psaB , gdhA , glnQ , sp_0858 , pdx1 and sp_1992 (p<0.05), marginally significant for sp_1914 (p = 0.06) and insignificant for the remaining eight genes (p>0.05).
For the N1 and CNV amplitudes ( Table 3 ; Fig 5 ), although there was no significant main effect of condition on the N1 ( F (2,52) = 2.09, p = 0.13, ƞ 2 = 0.074), there was a significant difference in the amplitude between the Neut→Neut condition and the Neg→Neut condition ( W = 101.00, p = 0.03, r rb = -0.466) and a marginally significant difference between Neut→Neut and Neut→Neg ( W = 111.00, p = 0.06, r rb = -0.466).