Excerpts

Not only was this pattern identified when all FC edges were examined, but, suggestively, it was also identified for the subset of edges comprising higher-order RSN nodes (the binomial test results are marginally significant, however; p = 0.058).

A significant trend was seen for the main effect with a tendency toward impaired vertical movement in those injected with 6-OHDA or PARA (left trace; F = 2.435; p = 0.058).

In July, the subtidal-control and subtidal-to-intertidal treatments exhibited a trend toward significance ( P = 0.058), while the intertidal-control differed significantly from subtidal-control and intertidal-to-subtidal treatments ( Table 2 ).

Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analysis on the interaction effect revealed a significant difference (p = .03) between CS+ 1ws (mean = 523.77 ms; sd = 149.42 ms) and CS+ 2ws (mean = 540.63 ms; sd = 161.03 ms) in the second hemiblock; a marginally significant effect emerged also for the first hemiblock (p = .058), with CS+ 1ws (mean = 517.36 ms; sd = 142.10 ms) presenting slightly faster reaction times than CS+ 2ws (mean = 527.55 ms; sd = 147.02 ms).

In contrast, for determination coefficients, randomized block design two-way ANOVA results indicated significant or marginally significant main effects of training and test and interactions ([position]; a main effect of training: F(4, 20) = 2.73, p = 0.0581; a main effect of test: F(4, 20) = 14.08, p < 0.0001; interaction between training and test: F(16, 80) = 6.56, p < 0.0001; [velocity]; a main effect of training: F(4, 20) = 11.62, p < 0.0001; a main effect of test: F(4, 20) = 26.25, p < 0.0001; interaction between training and test: F(16, 80) = 36.00, p < 0.0001).

For the band 1342 cm −1 , though there is no statistically significant changes between the two end groups, a marginally significant p value ( p = 0.0584) exists for the 200 °F10s vs. 450 °F30s groups.

The best model included a marginally significant negative association with the Perimeter/Area ratio ( p = 0.0584; Table S2 ; Fig.

In contrast, E3 mice on a HFD treated with insulin showed a trend towards exploring the novel object more than the familiar object ( t = 1.756, p = 0.0586) (Fig. 2 F).

Older animals were less active than younger animals (main effect of age, F (2, 47) = 27.36, P < 0.0001) though the interaction was just short of significance (F (2, 47) = 3.014, P = 0.0586).

Although not statistically significant, a positive trend between the change in MVPA and the change in general health was observed (ρ = 0.19, p = 0.059).

However, such a difference was very close to significance also in the ET [ t (22) = −2.65, p = 0.059, d = −0.53], and the Bayes factor value (BF 10 = 3.6) provided moderate support to the alternative hypothesis.

A repeated measures ANOVA confirmed these impressions as a significant effect of blood glucose evaluation day was found [ F (2,12) = 73.46, p < 0.000] and a marginally significant group effect [ F (1,6) = 5.40, p < 0.059], but no interaction [ F (2,12) = 2.21, p = 0.15].

This is in accordance with the near-significant higher apparent sodium digestibility in the CD1 mice (70% vs. 63% in C57Bl/6 J; p = 0.059) and the higher urine pH in CD1 mice found previously 41 .

There was a statistical trend towards a higher apparent sodium digestibility in the CD1 mice (70 ± 6.2% vs. 63 ± 5.0%; p = 0.059).

For Tier I/II alterations, we observed a modified PFS ratio (PFS targeted /PFS pre-chemotherapy ) of 1.86 that was borderline significant (p = 0.059) (Fig. 4 C).

5 B middle), although anger was marginally significant in the same condition (r = 0.42, P = 0.059; Fig. 5 B right).

However, the mixed model in the non-flash suppression condition (Table S2 ) revealed a trend toward significance for the interaction between group and condition ( p = 0.059).

Post-hoc tests on AUC error (Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons) following a significant Task*Stimulation Group interaction; F(2, 86) = 15.33, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.26, revealed this trend was significant between the cerebellar and M1 group ( p = 0.019) while a strong trend was found for the cerebellar and sham group difference ( p = 0.059).

A significant two-way interaction between group and hemisphere was also observed [ F (2,36) = 3.36, p = 0.046, η p 2 = 0.16], indicating that both the low-arousal music [ F (1,36) = 6.82, p = 0.013, η p 2 = 0.16] and high-arousal music groups [ F (1,36) = 29.18, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.45] exhibited stronger neural responses in the left than right hemisphere, while the silence group showed a marginally significant difference in neural responses between the left and right hemispheres [ F (1,36) = 3.80, p = 0.059, η p 2 = 0.10].

The total number of above-threshold interregional correlations in the OPR group showed a trend-level increase compared to the STA group (χ2 = 3.559, z = 1.887, p = 0.059).

As the same term was close to significance for state 1 with opposite sign ( t 6 = − 2.32, p = 0.059, Cohen’s d = − 0.55 ± 0.87), we probed the difference between state 1 and 3 counts (Counts 3 − Counts 1 ) in a follow-up analysis: the interaction remained significant ( t 6 = 4.6, p = 0.004, Cohen’s d = 1.08 ± 0.92), indicating that the more state 3 is expressed over state 1, the better the recovery, in a way that also depends on the MR signature.

Similar results were obtained for the validation cohort, except that multivariate analysis identified the serum LDH level as a significant prognostic predictor and only a statistical trend for OS (p = 0.059).

An almost significant decrease was observed for IL6 expression ( p = 0.059).

This decrease was only statistically significant in exon 4 (χ 2 = 12, P = 0.001) and marginally significant in intron 2a (χ 2 = 3.556, P = 0.059), whereas it was non-significant in exon 2 (χ 2 = 1.815, P = 0.178).

Following this up with two separate analysis for each assessment day, we found the main effect of stimulation on the second (but not the first) day of assessment at the level of near-significant tendency (F (2; 69) = 2.944; p = 0.059; ηp 2 = 0.079), with higher accuracy for abstract words in anodal tDCS than in sham group, albeit only at tendency level (p = 0.091; Z = − 2.2) (Fig. 5 ).