“marginally significant”

Oyster survival We found marginally significant differences (χ 2 = 7.66, df = 3, p = 0.05) in oyster survival among the sites from May 2018 – May 2019.

There was a marginally significant trend for those remaining in rural settings to be older (45.1 vs. 37.2 years, p = 0.05).

Three-year OS was marginally significant in patients with stage I/II compared with patients with stage III (64.3% vs 19.4%; P =.05).

In Americans, the unadjusted positive stress-suppression association ( r = 0.07 [−0.01, 0.16], p = .09) remained marginally significant after adjustment ( r = 0.09 [−0.25, −0.05], p = .05).

Pairwise comparisons using Log–rank test showed that there was significant difference in PFS ( Figure 3G ) between groups A and C ( p = 0.008), but marginally significant between groups A and B ( p = 0.05) and groups B and C ( p = 0.068), based on Bonferroni–Holm method of adjustment.

The exception was the marginally significant differences ( p = 0.05) in levels of flavonoids between the two years.

Results show that Degree is a negative and marginally significant predictor of the burnout index (ß = -.22, p< .05), while constraint is not (p>.1).

For the two studies the relation was positive and statistically significant and for the third was positive and marginally significant (P=0.05).

In the model only including males, urbanization coded as a continuous variable correlated negatively with body mass (yet marginally significant, p = .05) (Table 2 , Figure 2a ).

One-way ANOVA ( n = 3, since each of the NDVI scans for corn or cotton was done with three replicates) indicated that, except for corn under full irrigation on June 11 that exhibited a marginally significant diurnal change ( p = 0.056), five other diurnal courses of NDVI for corn/cotton all showed significant or highly significant diurnal trends ( p < 0.05).

The effect of WfH group walks in green corridor environments was marginally significant (β = 0.15, p = 0.05). 3.2.2.

We retained DERs that were at least marginally significant (p < 0.05) in this replication dataset, yielding 50,560 (80.1%) genome-wide significant DERs that were also differentially expressed in this independent DLPFC dataset, which were used for the analyses described below.

The effect of Condition in both age-groups concerning the duration of navigation was marginally significant ( p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.06) but a post hoc pairwise Tukey test indicated no significant differences.

For diastolic d-BP, although multivariate analysis detected marginally significant time-of-day differences in 2 of the 6 age groups (one-way ANOVA, P < 0.05), post hoc analyses found only one significant difference (Tukey’s test, adjusted P < 0.05) across all 2-h time bin comparisons ( SI Appendix , Fig.

For endurance ( Figure 2A ), the pooled analysis of the two studies indicated a marginally significant improvement in the C. sinensis supplementation group compared with the placebo group ( p = 0.05), with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 20%).

The clinically equivalent medium-dose BCG treatment demonstrated a marginally significant anti-tumor and survival benefit ( P = 0.05, Mantel-Cox test) over saline.

TD) on MMN amplitude at Fz was marginally significant [F (1, 42) = 4.141, p = 0.050, η 2 = 0.091].

Panicle number Only the main effect of Ghd7 was marginally significant ( P < 0.05), explaining 1.6% of the PN variation.

However, the interaction between task type and expectation level was marginally significant, F (2, 68) = 1.82, p = 0.05.

Retest), Frequency, and Group was marginally significant [ F (30,375)=1.49; p =.05].

Only AT1R and M3R exhibited more pronounced (median effect sizes 12.8 and 20.2%, respectively) and marginally significant ( p ≤ 0.05, U-test) increases in NAB-positive compared to NAB-negative PACVS subjects.

A few categories, such as Auxiliary (for Group 2), Familiar Objects and Verbs (for age), showed marginally significant p -values (e.g., p ≈ 0.05–0.06).

A marginally significant difference was also noted in the mothers’ nationality, with the majority of foreign mothers being in the low PB group (83.3%, Fisher's Exact Test, P = .05).

Conversely, the indirect effect of PA on SW through PSS was significant ( β = 0.109; t = 6.599; p < 0.001), with a marginally significant direct effect ( β = 0.070; t = 1.960; p > 0.05), suggesting a complementary partial mediation.

Linear models showed a marginally significant positive association between leopard fGCM and habitat NDVI values ( t value = 2.003, F (1, 201) = 4.01, P = 0.05) (Supplementary Material, Fig.