“a marginal trend”

However, there is a marginal trend of statistical significance for strain factor (F (1, 47) = 3.705, p = 0.06).

A similar regression predicting intention to drink coffee revealed a marginal trend for the main effect of condition (β = -0.16, t = -1.91, p = 0.06, r p = -0.16) with participants in the experimental condition reporting less desire for coffee, no significant effect of sensation seeking (β = 0.02, t = 0.21, p = 0.83, r p = 0.02) and no significant interaction (β = -0.02, t = -0.22, p = 0.83, r p = -0.02).

A secondary statistical analysis directly comparing the RelEnc and CD/CI conditions (using the CD/CI proportions as expected values) gives a degree of additional support for this conclusion in the form of a marginal trend favoring relational encoding, χ 2 (3, n = 91) = 7.44, p = 0.06, V = 0.29.

While mindfulness skills showed a marginal trend toward improvement ( P = .06), it did not reach statistical significance.

Although there was a marginal trend at baseline ( p = 0.060), this suggests that static ALPS is not a reliable predictor of symptom severity.

However, after training, there was a marginal trend indicating a higher reaction time in the control group compared to the experimental group ( F (1, 42) = 3.70, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.08) (see Figure 4 ). 4.2.

10 min) showed a marginal trend for CVAEs ( p = 0.06) [ 23 ].

Regarding, depression symptoms, a marginal trend towards significance was found in those volunteers that received a LF diet (β = 0.42, p = 0.06). 4.

In Model 1, working status predicted higher self-efficacy ( β = .141, P = .002), region of residence showed a marginal trend ( β = –.087, P = .061), and empowerment by clinical instructors was a strong positive predictor ( β = .736, P < .001), explaining 59.6% of the variance.

An initial one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of misestimate ratios (MR) for all 7 objects showed a marginal trend, F (6, 234) = 2.054, p = .061, η 2 p = .050.

Latent mean comparisons by gender Comparisons of latent means revealed no statistically significant differences between gender across the three SPSI’s subscales, although a marginal trend ( p = 0.061) was observed for low self-stigma, with girls reporting slightly lower self-stigma.

This analysis revealed a marginal trend for the main effect of stimulus category, F (2, 140) = 2.85, p = 0.061, η 2 p = 0.039, 90% confidence interval (CI) [0.000, 0.095].

Patients in Cluster 1 (N=26) were more frequently men (100% vs 17% in Cluster 2; p<0.0001) and smokers (80.8% vs 24.4%; p<0.0001), generally less educated (up to secondary education level: 46.1% vs 34.1%; p = 0.032) and mostly inactive workers (retired: 53.8% vs 17.1%; p<0.0001), with a lower income (≥25.000 Euros/year: 50.0% vs 26.8%; p = 0.002) and a marginal trend toward an older age (mean (SD) age: 60.7(13.3) vs 54.1(14.8); p = 0.061).

Resampling statistics based on these difference scores suggested that the difference in latencies observed for the neutral distractor reliably differed from those observed for the reward-associated distractor ( p = 0.038), with follow-up contrasts failing to identify a latency difference between location classification and presence classification for reward-associated distractors ( p = 0.276) but identifying a marginal trend for neutral distractors ( p = 0.061).

No other environmental variables showed significant effects, although relative humidity exhibited a marginal trend (p = 0.061).

Only compassion ( B = 0.34, P < 0.001) but not perceived discrimination ( B = 0.01, P = 0.696) positively associated with charitable giving (Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.183), while perceived discrimination showed a marginal trend for enhancing the effect of compassion on participation in charitable giving ( B = 0.04, P = 0.062, Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.150).

Saccadic direction (%correct) Saccadic direction to the gap and overlap targets revealed a marginal trend of a group effect [ F (1, 35) = 3.7, p = 0.062].

The channel effect on information credibility was of marginal significance, F (2, 297) = 2.81, p = 0.062, η 2 = 0.019, and Supplement or Alternative to Medical Care (SAMC) showed a marginal trend, F (2, 297) = 2.46, p = 0.087, η 2 = 0.016.

A marginal trend was observed in the Angry task ( P = 0.063), whereas the remaining projective picture tasks (Picture 2 and Picture 3) did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.193 and P = 0.247, respectively).

Birds receiving phages in DW showed a marginal trend toward reduced weight loss ( p = 0.063) than those in IM or APEC–only groups at 4 days post–infection.

This analysis revealed that the expectations toward IL and US speakers, regarding all the linguistic phenomena, did not differ between participants who were exposed to their language use and those who were not ( p s > .68), except a marginal trend of increased probability of a positive response in the IL condition for the lexical items (OR = 1.44, p = .063).

Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) revealed a marginal trend in community composition across elevation and land use (pseudo-F = 2.13, R2 = 0.18, df = 5, p = 0.063), indicating ecological structuring despite not reaching strict statistical significance.

The overall analysis, which incorporated all severity levels, suggested a marginal trend towards significance (z = 1.86, p = 0.063), with a pooled RR of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.50–1.02).

ANOVA revealed significant group differences in methylation levels at CpG6 and CpG8 ( p < 0.05), with CpG7 showing a marginal trend ( p = 0.063).

Sub-group differences in the lpSTS-I ( F (2,39) = 5.90, p = .006) were underscored by greater selectivity for adults compared to both younger ( t (26) = 3.41, p = .001) and older children ( t (26) = 1.88, p = .035) while a marginal trend for greater selectivity for older than young children was observed ( t (26) = 1.59, p = .063).