Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = 0.0641.3× alphagold
Comparing the two pulse-timings showed a marginally significant main effect of pulse timing ( F (1,7) = 4.820; p = 0.064) indicating that applying TMS pulses early, directly at the offset of the stimulus display, resulted in larger recall errors (24.23° on average) than TMS applied midway through the retention interval (23.4° on average) Audible ‘clicks’ from a TMS machine can have differential attentional cuing effects when presented at different time points [ 44 ], and thus have the potential to influence behavior differently early versus late during a memory delay.
marginally significantp = 0.0641.3× alphagold
We found a marginally significant decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in unadjusted analyses ( S2 Table ; p = 0.064 and p = 0.086, respectively), though after controlling for race/ethnicity, age, and sex, the relationship was further attenuated and was non-significant ( Table 3 ).
a positive trendp = 0.0651.3× alphagold
The results of earlier correlation studies performed for 17–20 European countries [172] , [173] were confirmed by the present study, wherein a positive trend was observed for the 29 European countries (B = 4.05, p = 0.065, Eta 2 = 0.135), but, this correlation could not be detected for the entire 88 countries.
marginal significancep = 0.0651.3× alphagold
In fact, a one-way RM ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction revealed a significant difference for AI within prism distortions (F (1.86, 20.45) = 5.091, p = 0.018; η 2 p = 0.316; 1-β = 0.74, n = 14 to achieve 1-β = 0.8; post hoc NK test: 0° vs 15°, p = 0.004, and 5° vs 15°, p = 0.024) and only a marginal significance for MT within prism distorsions (F (2.19, 24.06) = 2.987, p = 0.065; η 2 p = 0.214; 1-β = 0.55, n = 19 to achieve 1-β = 0.8, post hoc NK test: 0° vs 15°, p = 0.05).
marginally non-significantP = 0.0651.3× alpha
There was marginally non-significant difference in the amplitude of buoyant force fluctuations between the first and the second dipping trial ( F 1,25 = 3.72, P = 0.065 Table 1 ) and non- significant two- or three-way interaction between sex and age on the amplitude of the force fluctuations between the two dipping trials.