“marginally insignificant”

However, the interaction term was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.06).

However, its correlation with UCR was marginally insignificant ( p ‐value = 0.06), and an increase in the number of patients might differ the results.

3 A and 4 C), but it was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.06) in terms of sICH (Fig. 4 D).

Analysis of the relationship between striking life events and breast cancer indicated a marginally insignificant association (HR: 1.715, 95% CI: 0.976-3.017, p = 0.0609).

However, the FE model results showed a marginally insignificant positive association between the number of distinct medication types and satisfactory glycaemic control (0.007, 95% CI: −0.000 to 0.014, p=0.061).

Marital status showed a marginally insignificant association with the total score (F (3, 302) = 2.483, p = 0.061), although the divorced individuals had lower scores (M = 8.00, SD = 4.43) compared to married participants (M = 12.29, SD = 3.78).

We quantified the mean Electrodermal Activity (EDA) and observed a correlation (marginally insignificant despite the low sample size) with cognitive engagement (r(19) = 0.416, p = 0.061).

As the results from this ANOVA were only marginally insignificant ( F (3, 92) = 2.54, p = .061), post-hoc analyses were conducted.

By including in the model the interaction term between the two factors, we get a marginally insignificant p-value (p = 0.0619), indicating that some of the methods behave differently with input sequences of different type.

However, the difference in RMDQ was only marginally insignificant (F (1,24) =3.83, p=0.062).

If we analyze the data from each strain, the differences between horizontally ( n = 31) and vertically transmitted taxa ( n = 8) are marginally insignificant for the abundance of ANK-containing proteins (5.13 vs. 0.88, Mann-Whitney U p = 0.062) and proportion of ANK-containing proteins (0.39% vs. 0.11%, Mann-Whitney U p = 0.08).

Interestingly, there was a marginally insignificant increase in the likelihood of radionecrosis for small lesions planned with Lightening (HR=7.75, p=0.062).

The coefficient for control of corruption is positive (1.544), though it is marginally insignificant at the 0.05 level (p-value = 0.062).

Age showed a marginally insignificant but positive relationship with contentment (B=0.043, p=0.062).

The degree of forward lean when walking showed a strong negative correlation coefficient (–0.729), although marginally insignificant ( p = 0.063).

The variation in the mean (±SD) age of the respondents was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.063 ).

C:N ratio linear model was significant (T 1,75 = -14.8, p-value < 0.001) the intercept term was marginally insignificant (T = 1.89, p-value = 0.063).

The multivariable model including the three significant variables derived from univariable analyses, arrived at a coefficient of –0.00046 for public spending on health, which was marginally insignificant at the 0.05 level (95% CI: –0.00095, 0.00003, p-value = 0.063).

The difference between the 1.5 and 2 ratios was marginally insignificant, t (29) = 1.92, p = 0.064, d = 0.171.

DL also displayed a strong association with OAB in the univariate analysis (OR 1.377, p=0.002) and was marginally insignificant in the multivariate analysis (OR 1.219, p=0.064), indicating that it might interact with other factors that influence OAB.

The E T -cell size relationship for heterotrophic flagellates was marginally insignificant because of the low number of taxa included: E T = - 0.088 - 0.375 l o g 10 V G M ; r 2 = 0.99 ; p = 0.064 ; n = 3 Discussion Phytoplankton biomass The phytoplankton succession during the experiment took the typical course of transient autumn blooms in Kiel Bight, when after extended vertical mixing in Kiel Bight surface concentrations of nitrate, phosphate and silicate are saturating for algal growth and calm and sunny conditions permit a growth pulse of phytoplankton.

An expanded model for LC that included the results of the first census (Phase 1, pre-stress) as a covariate explained no additional variation in LC (Adj R 2 = 0.53, p < 0.0001), and the covariate was marginally insignificant (F = 3.45, p < 0.0658).

Differences between coastal and mountain‐Piedmont groups accounted for approximately 3% of total genetic variation for both library one and two results, which is marginally insignificant with a two‐tailed statistical test (library one: p = .06585; library two: p = .06707).

This overall interaction effect was marginally insignificant in 2011 (p = 0.0659), but more pronounced in 2012 (p = 0.0266) ( Table 1 ).

8.86 ± 5.82), but the difference was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.066).