Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = 0.091.8× alphagold
regilla decreased within all treatments between day 8 and 15; this negative change in infection load was significant in the intermediate treatment (Welch’s t-test t 8 = 3.568; p = 0.004) and was marginally significant in the low inoculation dose treatment (Welch’s t-test t 12 = 2.22; p = 0.09).
near significancep = 0.091.8× alphagold
The cut-point for Spry2 expression were calculated as described in the Materials and Methods , such that as well as showing high significance for difference in survival (p = 0.0069; Figure 5B ), the cutpoint for Spry2 expression also maintained near significance with Monte Carlo simulations (p = 0.09) and correction for type I error (Miller-Seigmund p value = 0.12).
marginally significantp = 0.091.8× alphagold
There was a tendency for readers to have longer reading times on pseudowords in the incongruent condition than pseudowords in the balanced condition; the effect was marginally significant for first fixation duration (mean difference = 9ms, b = -0.02, SE = 0.01, t = -1.78, p = 0.09) and gaze duration (mean difference = 21ms, b = -0.04, SE = 0.03, t = -1.73, p = 0.09), and significant for total fixation time (mean difference = 58ms, b = -0.08, SE = 0.04, t = -1.99, p < 0.05).
marginally significantp = .091.8× alphagold
Results Pre-registered analysis To address our pre-registered hypothesis ( https://osf.io/ht3yn ), we conducted a chi-square test and found a marginally significant difference in attendance rate between the two conditions [ X 2 (1,263) = 2.86, p = .09].
borderline significancep = 0.091.8× alpha
Compared to acute controls, NK1R binding was significantly reduced in SIDS cases in the NTS (p = 0.04), DAO (p = 0.01) and MAO (p = 0.03) ( Fig 3A ) and significantly reduced in the DAO (p = 0.01) and MAO (p = 0.03) with borderline significance in the PIO (p = 0.09) when compared to all controls combined (acute, chronic and hypoxic) ( Fig 3B ).
a marginal trendp = .091.8× alphagold
As per previous investigations of visual performance fields [5] , [8] , we first conducted a 2 (Head Posture) * 2 (Distractor Orientation) * 8 (Target Location) omnibus ANOVA on these transformed values averaged over participants, which confirmed main effects of Head Posture ( F (1,3) = 13.474, MSE = .139, p = .035, η 2 = .818), and Location ( F (7,21) = 11.521, MSE = .427, p <.001, η 2 = .793), but only a marginal trend for the main effect of Distractor Orientation ( F (1,3) = 6.104, MSE = .841, p = .09, η 2 = .670).