“marginally significant”

Increasing PP resulted in a marginally significant reduction in Ca absorption ( P <0·05), whereas increasing NPP had a positive effect on Ca absorption ( P <0·001).

With the exception of the non-significant difference between the DMN and the single system ( X 2 = 2.54 p = 0.1) and the DMN and the δ-Single between-network connectivity (X 2 = 1.53 p = 0.2) which was likely explained by the relatively large overlap between the DMN and the single system, the results showed that the difference between the fc-behavior correlation coefficients of the two sets of networks was significant (or marginally significant) (Single-SMN: X 2 = 3.6, p< 0.05; Single-VN: X 2 = 5.69, p< 0.05; β-Single –DMN: X 2 = 4.78 p< 0.05; β-Single –SMN: X 2 = 6.64 p< 0.01; β-Single –VN: X 2 = 9.56 p< 0.01; δ-Single – SMN:: X 2 = 3.38 p = 0.06; δ-Single – SMN:: X 2 = 5.52 p< 0.05).

This effect reached statistical significance for CIV ( p = 0.001) and was marginally significant for CI ( p = 0.05).

However, the change was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

A follow-up ANOVA excluding the 0 cm condition showed a marginally significant effect of group [ F (1, 15) = 4.54, p = 0.05], but again no group × increment interaction.

However, a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures showed only a marginally significant effect of Time (p = 0.05), but no Time*Treatment interaction (p = 0.19).

Proportion female/male participants In pooled analyses of all SITB outcomes measured continuously, but not dichotomously, we detected a marginally significant and weak moderating effect of proportion of female/male participants ( b = − 0.01, p = 0.05) indicating slightly stronger effects for samples with a greater number of female participants (Table 3 ).

By contrast, cold tolerance might explain some proportion of daily fecundity, as indicated by a marginally significant interaction between cold tolerance and selective population ( χ 2 = 7.68, df = 3, P = 0.05).

There was a marginally significant effect of planting date on the percentage of plants establishing in the field [F 1,9 = 5.4, p=5x10 -2 ] but not sowing date.

Soil available P was positively correlated with NaHCO 3 -Pi ( R 2 = 0.15, with a marginally significant level of 0.059; Figure 3B ) and soil NaOH-Pi ( R 2 = 0.19, p < 0.05; Figure 3D ) but was negatively correlated with soil residual-P ( R 2 = 0.25, p < 0.05; Figure 3I ).

Winter treatment had a marginally significant effect on ballooning probability (GLMM X 2 1 = 3.80, P = 0.05).

For A allele of SLCO2B1 rs1789693, HR = 1.17 per risk allele ( p = 0.10), including a marginally significant association in White men (HR = 1.23, p = 0.05).

The analysis for the Nc component revealed that the overall regression model is marginally significant, F(2, 90) = 3.075, p = .05, R 2 = 0.064.

The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis indicated patients in the GCE group had a lower fasting blood glucose (FBG) concentration compared to the placebo group; however, this decreasing was marginally significant (8.48 ± 8.41 vs. 1.70 ± 5.82 mg/dL, p = 0.05).

In comparison to the reference population, the distribution of blood groups among all SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals was different (marginally significant; p = 0.05) ( Table 2B ).

Compared with those in the bottom tertiles, individuals in the top tertiles of animal protein had a lower WHR ( P = 0.04). There was a marginally significant difference between tertiles of dietary plant protein and the FMI of participants ( P = 0.05).

In the no-contact condition, the simple main effect of the state of the phone was marginally significant, F (1.49,35.87) = 3.71, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.011, and the dots distance was significant, F (1.22,29.31) = 5.39, p = 0.02, η 2 = 0.024.

These changes in cognitively active learning behaviors remained significant (at p < 0.05) or marginally significant (at p = 0.05) after correcting for multiple comparisons ( N = 3).

In comparison, the path:00982_1 signature displayed a significant predictive capacity in 5 datasets ( P < 0.05) and a marginally significant predictive ability in 2 datasets (0.1 < P > 0.05) in this analysis (Analytical data File 4).

Experiments where a result was termed ‘marginally significant’ or ‘approaching significance’ ( p >.05 or greater than researcher-specified significance level where experiments used a more restrictive criterion—e.g., correcting for multiple comparisons) were also coded as ‘No Effect’.

The movement × condition interaction was not significant for control pictures ( F (1, 58) = .72, p = .40), but it was marginally significant for alcohol pictures ( F (1,58) = 3.92 p = .05).

During preparation, a very small, but significant, activity increase was found within PMv ( p = 0.002), and a marginally significant increase within PMd ( p = 0.050; Fig. 4 b ), suggesting large variability across participants.

arabiensis , respectively, and this difference is reflected in the marginally significant increase in sensitivity of antennal response in Ae. aegypti compared with An. arabiensis at 1% ß-ocimene (Tukey post hoc P = 0.050; Figure 6 ).

The mediation analysis highlighted a marginally significant indirect effect from T1 exposure to community violence as a witness to T3 bullying perpetration through T2 CDs, β = 0.02, t = 1.96, p = 0.05, 95% C.I.

The differences were more pronounced from three to 15 days and marginally significant ( p > 0.05) after day 15 of lactation.