Excerpts

While receiving anodal stimulation over the rVLPFC, the difference in mood rating score between social excluded participants (M exclusion&anodal = 3.93, SD exclusion&anodal = 0.38) and included participants (M inclusion&anodal = 4.14, SD inclusion&anodal = 0.35) was marginally significant (F (1, 124) = 3.62, p = 0.06).

Interpretation of Regression Models 4.1 Knowledge Model The overall model is borderline non-significant (F(3,187) = 2.52, p = 0.060), with R2 = 0.04. • The model explains only 4% of the variance. • Despite this, sex is interpreted as a meaningful predictor.

We observed that the higher the recorded coverage is, the higher the sensitivity is, and the correlation is marginally significant (p = 0.06).

The 3×2×6 mixed ANOVA with between-subjects factors group (learners, non-learners, or controls), and within-subjects factors training run (first run, last run) and BMA parameter (V-SPL, SPL-V, up_V, up_SPL, up_V-SPL, up_SPL-V) revealed a significant main effect of group (F(1,2) = 5.49, p = 0.04), a significant main effect of BMA parameter (F(1,5) = 3.66, p = 0.01), and a strong trend towards significance in the 3-way interaction between group×training run×BMA parameter (F(1,10) = 1.91, p = 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.

The results showed that the interaction between Group and Test was marginally significant ( F (1,20) = 3.82, p = .06, η 2 p = .16).

FD mice gained 18% more weight with a marginal significance ( p = 0.06) in accordance with a previous study [65] .

The interaction between household/transportation PA groups and time remained significant for the TMTB (p = 0.03) and IST (p = 0.009) scores, suggesting a slower decline over time, and was borderline significant for the TMTA scores (p = 0.06).

In the subgroup for which computed tomography data were available, nonfasting glucose levels were lower in the offspring group as compared to the control subjects, although this difference was only borderline significant (5.7 and 6.0 mmol/L for offspring of long-lived siblings and partners respectively, p = 0.06).

In the second session, we observed a nearly significant relation between Stimulus Intensity, Attention Condition and Individual Training Time for the post-post2 group, F (1,11) = 4.4, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.28, but we found no relation between Individual Training Time and Stimulus Intensity when separate tests were performed per attention condition ( p > 0.35).

In addition, distribution of differentiation tended to differ by the SNP with a marginal significance ( P = 0.06, extended Fisher’s exact test).

Feeding the low fat diet, however, lowers myoglobin levels in Cpt1b m-/- mice to the point where they are no longer significantly higher than controls fed the same diet (p = 0.17), but are lower than Cpt1b m-/- mice fed a chow diet with marginal significance (p = 0.06).

On the contrary, the comparison between late deaf CI recipients and their matched controls revealed a significant main effect of Condition (F(1.5, 27.8) = 50.6, p<0.001, effect size η p 2 = 0.3) but only a marginally significant interaction between Condition and Group (F(1.5, 27.8) = 3.3, p = 0.06, effect size η p 2 = 0.2).

Although this region did not survive the multiple comparisons analysis, it is reported for two reasons: first, due to the hypothesis concerning TPJ involvement in future prediction (see the Introduction ); second, the p value of this region after correction was close to significance ( p = 0.06).

There was a trend towards significance of age in the CA3 ( F (1,14) = 3.197 p = 0.06) indicating that increased gliotic astrocytes may be age-dependent in hAPP-J20 mice.

We found only a trend toward significance for WMHs of presumed vascular origin between PLHIVs and HUC (p = 0.06).

Importantly, for both target-stimuli the number of trials correct at each duration was not significantly different from chance-level (12 correct; p ’s>.22), except for a marginally significant difference for bodies presented at a duration of 14 ms ( p = .06).

Pairwise contrasts revealed this effect was largely attributable to larger WM capacity in musicians relative to nonmusicians ( p <0.01) and a marginally significant effect between M and C ( p = 0.06).

This is supported by regressions of mean number of emerged adults (data from reps #4–6) on mean eggs invested (reps #1–3), where the slope is marginally significant for alfalfa aphid clones (F 1, 3 = 8.7419, P = 0.060), but clearly insignificant for clover clones (F 1, 3 = 2.50, P = 0.2021).

In contrast, I bs was only a relatively weak and marginally significant (Beta = 0.180, p = 0.06) predictor of female obesity prevalence ( Table 5 ).

There was a strong trend (p = 0.06) toward higher serum HIV-1 RNA concentration in last-on-therapy samples from participants reaching a primary study endpoint (mean 87,264 copies/mL; range 35,227–216,219 copies/mL) compared with those who did not (mean 37,424 copies/mL; range 826–138,776 copies/mL).

The effect of affective reaction on sunk-cost scores was only marginally significant under low cognitive load, β = .21, t (123) = 1.90, p = .060, η p 2 = .05.

Phase alignment is weaker for the second alap section with 2 participants showing significant alignment and 3 close to significance (Kuiper p = 0.06).

The variable time (days post exposure) has a near-significant positive effect (p = 0.06) on LVE of ticks given they are infected.

There was a marginally non-significant trend that the interaction term Treatment x Maternal body condition predicted offspring sex ratio (Pri: z = 1.86, P = 0.06, Sec: z = 1.80, P = 0.07).