Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = .0511.0× alphagold
The two conditions with potential ostensive cues (Nodding and Nodding with direct gaze) resulted in marginally significant gaze following and medium effect sizes ( t (21) = 1.715, p = .051, d = 0.75, t (21) = 1.699, p = .052, d = 0.74, respectively).
Is ostension any more than attention?
Sci Rep · 2014 · PMC4058873
marginally significantp = .0511.0× alphagold
When we did that, for SVO the pooled analysis showed an overall effect (β = 0.069, t = 1.53, p = .013), which means the effect of the target (compared to baseline) is consistent in this condition; for S ba OV the difference between the target condition and the baseline was not statistically significant (β = 0.011, t = 0.27, p = .079); the pooled results showed a marginally significant difference between the target condition and the baseline in O, S ba OV condition (β = 0.021, t = 0.67, p = .051).).
nearly significantp = 0.0511.0× alphagold
In addition, a nearly significant and positive three-way interaction of (group [Active tACS] × session [3]) × MoCA (beta = 3.26, 95% CI [− 0.01, 6.53], t(811) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [− 4.65e−04, 0.23]) indicated higher offline visuomotor learning 3 months after treatment in participants with lower MoCA from the active tACS group compared to those from the sham tACS group (Fig. 4 b).
only marginally significantp = 0.0511.0× alphagold
While the rate of successful reperfusion was only marginally significant at 83.3% for patients with a good outcome compared to 50.0% for those with a poor outcome ( p = 0.051), the rate of successful reperfusion of newly embolized territory was significantly higher in the good outcome group (91.7%) than in the poor outcome group (30.8%, p < 0.001), with shorter procedure time (53 ± 27 min vs. 113 ± 55 min, respectively, p < 0.001).
near-significantp = 0.0511.0× alphagold
Whether offspring were returned to genetic or foster parents did not significantly predict any measure of father-son song similarity, with one near-significant exception: Males returned to their biological parents tended to have higher sequential song similarity than those returned to foster parents (LMM: t = −2.05, p = 0.051).