Excerpts

Fig 2 illustrates that the AUD+Gambling group had higher scores in the BIS Nonplanning ( t (100) = -3.024, p = 0.003, Cohen’s d = -0.634) and the BIS Total scores ( t (100) = -2.635, p = 0.010, Cohen’s d = -0.555), and a tendency toward significance in the BIS Motor Impulsivity ( t (100) = -1.767, p = 0.080, Cohen’s d = -0.371).

A one-way ANOVA comparing the four taste groups was not statistically significant, but showed a trend towards possible differences across the taste groups (F(3,196) = 2.2, p = .08).

Quantitative SWI measurements for hemorrhagic volumes, as shown in Fig 1C , demonstrated that the BMSC treated T2DM rats only exhibited marginally significant (p<0.08) smaller hemorrhagic volumes than the control T2DM rats at 5w after stroke.

The interaction between MTB race time and training modality was almost significant (p = 0.08), with a smaller ES in HIT vs.

The analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of the condition contrast, β = .19, p = .080, qualified by a significant interaction with PNS, β = –.28, p = .036.

Further, a posteriori correlation revealed that the magnitude of the switch-cost between the task-switching and no-go blocks approached conventional levels of significance (r = 0.43, p = 0.08).

A marginally significant effect for risk × group (F (1, 214) = 3.09, p = 0.08) was observed with the HIV- group selecting risky choices marginally more than the HIV+ group (HIV-: risky M = 0.19, safe M = 0.62; HIV+: risky M = 0.14, safe = 0.68).

A 2-way repeated measures ANOVA with cue-type and number-of-items as factors indicated that the main effect of cue type was non-significant ( F (3,21) = 1.6, p = 0.22), the main effect of number-of-items was significant ( F (1,7) = 6.46, p <0.04), and the interaction between these factors falls just short of significance ( F (3,21) = 2.67, p <0.08).

The test of exogeneity was marginally significant (p = 0.08).

Correlation between PMNs mobilization and CXCL1 plasma levels was also evaluated and we found a clear significance (r = 0.66, p = 0.001) when animals of all groups were included (n = 28) and a trend towards significance (r = 0.71, p = 0.08) when only ischemic animals were evaluated (n = 7) (Data not shown).

citri The cumulative adult psyllid-days was negatively related to flush shoot hardness ( y = 2.63–1.7 x , df = 1, 2; R 2 = 0.84), albeit marginally significant ( P = 0.08) ( S1 Fig ).

A similar pattern emerged with marginal significance when comparing hookup with other CSRs (β indirect effect = -0.03, p = .08; Fig 4c ).

There was a marginally significant difference in the amount of predation incurred between the states (State*Treatment interaction: F 1,54 = 3.2, P = 0.0804), with C. maculata eggs in Iowa soybean experiencing slightly higher predation than in Michigan fields (6.5±1.5 and 10.1±1.1 eggs remaining in predator accessible egg masses in Iowa and Michigan respectively).

The interaction between congruency and task type showed a trend for significance (F(1,13) = 3.59, p = 0.0807) with larger congruency effect observed in the color task.

This relationship becomes near-significant if low SCPs are excluded from the analysis (F 2,8 = 3.49, p = 0.081) and post hoc analysis (p<0.1) suggests that the difference was among species rather than being attributable to the capacity to survive freezing.

The prevalence rate of average LLT > 90 nm at 5 months after surgery was higher than before surgery with marginal significance (50.0% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.081).

Success A binomial mixed-effects regression model with random slopes by round for each dyad and random slopes and intercepts by round for each target word indicated a marginally significant positive effect of round on success (β = 0.07, SE = 0.04, p = .081).

For physical and psychological abuse, dependency status showed suggestive patterns ( p = 0.128 and p = 0.166, respectively), while the use of social services approached significance for sexual abuse ( p = 0.081).

Mediation of victim number effects While the direct effect of victim number on donation amounts was not significant, ß < .03, p = .646, we found a marginally significant direct effect of the victim number manipulation on impact judgments, ß = –.14, p = .081.

The change of RMSSD in the placebo trial showed a trend to correlate with total daily caffeine consumption in able-bodied (R = 0.52; p = 0.081) and in paraplegic (R = 0.65; p = 0.058) but not in tetraplegic (p = 0.65) participants.

The proportion of patients with metastases in all SLNs in positive NSLN group showed a trend towards higher than that in negative NSLN group ( P = 0.081).

The patients but not the controls showed a trend in the Condition effect [ F (1.59, 30.23) = 2.91, p = .081].

>100 cells/μL was predictive (crude HR 1.90, CI 1.26–6.63, P = 0.012; aHR 1.97, CI 0.81–4.81, P = 0.14) and a CD4 + count of 51–100 cells/μL was of borderline significance (crude HR 2.25, CI 0.91–5.60, P = 0.081; aHR 1.60, CI 0.61–4.20, P = 0.34).

The difference for the Adjacency metric was in the same direction but only marginally significant, t (19) = 1.84, p = .081, η 2 = .151.

The relationship between Fuhrman grade and LASP-1 expression showed borderline significance ( P = 0.081).