Excerpts

Moreover, those who reported a longer weekend sleep by 2 h or more demonstrated a 60% increase [1.60 (1.02, 2.51)], and this association was particularly striking in females [2.31 (1.15, 4.63)], although the interaction term between weekday–weekend difference in sleep duration and sex was only borderline significant (p = 0.07).

We found a marginally significant main effect of congruence (χ 2 (1) = 3.1, p = 0.07), a main effect of task (χ 2 (1) = 5.0, p = 0.02) and no main effect of AOI (χ 2 (3) = 1.8, p = 0.6).

The effect of scale fragmentation on growth rate was negative, but marginally non-significant (p = 0.07; Table 2 ).

EW was near to significance (p = 0.07) being lower for homozygous Ala/Ala (36.1 ± 9.2 kg) compared with wild type (38.7 ± 12.2 kg) and heterozygous (42.1 ± 13.6 kg) subjects.

T CORE -ANT + at exercise termination showed similar correlations with ΔT P from warm-up to recovery (ΔTP WU–REC) at T3 ( r = 0.85, p = 0.002) and a near-significant correlation at T2 ( r = 0.56, p = 0.07), but no association at T1 ( r = 0.04, p = 0.906).

There still remained no significant group × time interaction, though the effect size more than doubled (near medium) and approached significance, ( F (1,56) = 3.38, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.06, d = 0.48).

24 sub-threshold RCC-susceptibility loci either overlapped or lay within 25 kb of a HIF-binding site, which was of borderline significance (p = 0.07) (Fig. 6C ).

It seems that this small increase was not sufficient to induce a significant increase in the mediolateral COM fall at foot-contact (note however that the difference in the mean mediolateral COM velocity at this time between the control and the orth-stance condition almost reached significance, with p < 0.07).

For the commission error (CE), there was a marginally significant valence effect (F(2,114) = 2.717, p = 0.070).

Sample type showed a marginally significant effect (p-value = 0.07), with the 6% M and 9% samples demonstrating superior performance compared to other samples.

When the correlation was separately performed for seen and unseen trials, we found that although not statistically significant, there was a clear trend for a correlation between Target presence decoding accuracy and performance in the tilt discrimination task for seen trials ( r = .36, p = .07), but not for unseen trials ( r = − .14, p = .50) (Fig. 9 B and C).

The association only approached significance for nonverbal vocalizations ( r [21] = 0.39, p = 0.07; Cook’s distance range = 0.00–0.56).

However, the higher relative abundance of Prevotella bivia in women with SPE was only marginally significant after adjustment for BMI ( P = 0.07) in the confirmation cohort, suggesting that the role of Prevotella bivia in SPE may be modified by BMI.

SPR for Brother John were also significantly correlated with all other rates (from SMT online pre-lab: r (45) = 0.37, p = 0.014) to clapping: r (53) = 0.57, p < 0.001), except walking ( r (49) = 0.26, p = 0.076), and those for Twinkle only fell short of significance with walking rate ( r (50) = 0.26, p = 0.070).

Survival showed a trend to correlate with log titre F IgG (Supplemental Figure S2A, p = 0.07), but not with the log titre G pvNAb (Supplemental Figure S2B, p = 0.38).

The difference in timing between control and CCR5 RNP injected embryos approached significance for the timing of cleavage to 2-cells and development to 8-cells (p = 0.070 and p = 0.054, respectively), but were not statistically significantly different.

We observed the same trend as that observed in the previous study 10 , and this difference was nearly statistically significant ( p = 0.07).

Additionally, the main effect of group approached significance ( F (1,34) = 3.59, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.07), with higher scores for the low AQ group ( M = 76.2, SD = 15.6) compared to the high AQ group ( M = 67.2, SD = 19.2).

The unadjusted result was of borderline significance on univariate analysis (p = 0.07) (Table 2 , Fig. 3 ).

For the GABA/Glu ratio, the 2 × 5 RM-ANOVA revealed a statistical trend for the factor stimulation condition (F (1, 20) = 3.581, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.152), no significant effect of the factor time point (F (4, 80) = 0.907, p = 0.46, η 2 p = 0.043), but a significant stimulation condition × time point interaction (F (4, 80) = 2.555, p = 0.04, η 2 p = 0.113).

A Levene’s Test indicated that there was less variance in average ratings for structural interventions ( SD = 0.79) than individual interventions ( SD = 0.88), though this difference was only marginally significant ( F (279, 279) = 0.80, p = 0.07).

Higher WMH volume was associated with lower attention (β = − 0.03, SD = 0.01, p = 0.03) and approached significance with lower executive functions and language functioning (β = − 0.02, SD = 0.01, p = 0.07; β = − 0.02, SD = 0.01, p = 0.07, respectively, for the full models, Fig. 2 , and supplementary Table 1 ).

However, the group difference in DMPFC response to sleep pictures was marginally significant ( P = 0.07) after controlling for total sleep time measured by sleep diary.

Follow-up analyses revealed that while there were no significant interactions between group and trial quadrant for phases IS and NL (all ps ≥ 0.160), there was a marginally significant interaction for the FT data, F (1,62) = 3.399, p = 0.070, partial η 2 = 0.052.

We found a marginally significant main effect of GROUP, F(1,22) = 3.37, p = 0.07, and a statistically significant interaction between GROUP and BMI, F(1,22) = 4.53, p < 0.05 showing that sensitivity in the yes-no task for women with ANSD is statistically different from that of the controls, as can be seen in Fig. 3b .