“marginally significant”

In Table S5 , we also reported the proteins in each complex that are marginally significant (p < 0.05) based on the univariate association test using mixed effects regression models.

A 2 (test) × 3 (group) mixed-factors ANOVA revealed no main effect of group, F (2,71) = 0.16; p = 0.85; η 2 G < 0.01, no main effect of test, F (1,71) = 1.10; p = 0.30; η 2 G < 0.01, but a marginally significant group × test interaction, F (2,71) = 3.07; p = 0.05; η 2 G = 0.02.

ngagement Strategies pathway (β = 0.224, p < 0.001); Hypothesis H5 demonstrated robust support, revealing the strongest direct effect where Psychological Resilience significantly enhanced Cognitive Engagement Strategies (β = 0.366, p < 0.001); Finally, Hypothesis H6 was partially supported, showing marginally significant positive influence of Psychological Resilience on Academic Motivation (β = 0.149, p < 0.05).

There was a main effect of stimulus type ( F (1,83) = 12.48, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.13) as memory was better for pictures than for odors, and a marginally significant main effect of delay ( F (2,83) = 3.15, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.07).

There was a marginally significant negative correlation between changes (baseline to 12 months) in average steps/day and the change BMI ( r = −0.389; P = 0.050), where steps/day increased as BMI decreased over time.

lanceolatum MRF neighborhood and human chromosomes 11 and 12 (binomial test, 11: P < 2 × 10 −3 , 12: P < 1 × 10 −2 ; Barnard’s exact test, 11: P < 1 × 10 −10 , 12: P < 2 × 10 −8 ; supplementary information 6 c – d , Supplementary Material online), whereas there was no significant association observed with chromosome 1, and only a marginally significant association with 19 in one of the tests (Barnard’s exact test, P < 0.05).

There was a marginally significant difference in T2 PTSD symptoms ( t [164] = 1.97, p = 0.05), with those participating at both times reporting lower symptom levels ( M = 32.64, SD = 16.93) compared to those who only participated at T2 ( M = 39.16, SD = 19.48).

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.

Response efficacy had a significant positive impact ( β = 0.470, p <0.001); perceived threat also exerted a significant positive effect ( β = 0.289, p <0.001); response cost showed a significant negative influence ( β = −0.156, p <0.001); and self-efficacy exhibited a marginally significant positive association ( β = 0.092, p <0.05).

ER-positive status was found in 98.8% of ILCs versus 86.6% of IDCs (p<0.01), and PR-positive status was found in 82.9% of ILCs and in 73.0% of IDCs, with a marginally significant difference (p=0.05).

However, gender stereotype endorsement (GSE; Model 2) was found to differentially predict the trait-state discrepancy based on gender as stated in Hypothesis 3: This discrepancy was positively predicted by GSE for girls (γ 120 = 0.21, p < 0.001), whereas for boys the effect of GSE was negative and marginally significant (γ 120 = −0.09, p = 0.05).

Supplementary Table 2 reports the parameter estimates for the same moderators using non-PVC data, which shows the same pattern of results, but a heightened effect of BMI such that males show a marginally significant or trending relationship between higher BMI and greater tau accumulation in left Braak56 ( β = -0.746, p = 0.05) in right Braak34 ( β = -0.614, p = 0.09). 4.

There were marginally significant between strata differences in the relationship of opioid misuse and PHQ-9 score (interaction p -value = 0.050).

Finally, there was no effect of novelty on time spent encountering the objects ( t 1 = 1.07, p = 0.29), but time spent inside each zone was marginally significant ( t 1 = 1.95, p = 0.05); regardless of treatment, object type or location, fish spent more time in the novel object zone than the familiar zone (in seconds; novel: 293.57 ± 11.84; familiar: 257.82 ± 14.09).

Pearson correlation analysis revealed a statistically significant but weak positive correlation with age ( r = 0.20, p = 0.03), and a marginally significant correlation with work experience ( r = 0.13, p = 0.05), with the emotional labour score.

Stress symptoms were significantly associated with PHR, NHR, and MHR, with OR values of 2.08, 1.64, and 2.94 ( p < 0.01), and a marginally significant association with LHR (OR = 1.48, p < 0.05).

With regard to adaptive strategies, the group difference was marginally significant [ F (1,78) = 3.97, p = 0.05, ε 2 = 0.05].

There was a marginally significant genotype-by-diagnosis interaction (F 2,110 = 3.08, p = 0.050), which appeared to be driven by CUD patients with homozygous CC, who had shorter latencies on unsuccessful Stop trials compared with healthy control participans of the same genotype (F 1,103 = 3.703, p = 0.057).

Meta-analysis of OER The pooled analysis of 4 studies (n = 235) showed a marginally significant benefit for acupuncture (OR = 2.18, 95% CI [0.99, 4.80]; I 2=0%; P = .05; Fig. 7 ).

Group differences: health-promoting factors Sense of coherence An ANOVA with occupation as between-subject factor and SOC scores as dependent variable revealed marginally significant between-group differences, F (2, 577) = 3.02, p = .050, η 2 = .010 (see Table 2 ).

5 ) but not in controls (2% reduction per cm 3 , p = .79) and the group interaction was marginally significant (mean difference 19% reduction per cm 3 , p = .050).

Group-specific analyses showed that this relationship was driven primarily by the expert group, which demonstrated a significant medium positive correlation (ρ = 0.4006, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.2617, 0.5233]), and the Gemini group, which showed a marginally significant correlation (ρ = 0.3121, p = 0.050, 95% CI [0.0007, 0.5684]).

This difference between regions was marginally significant [χ 2 (2, 112) = 9.49, p < 0.05].

Worse, in this case, the unadjusted p values were marginally significant (0.004 < p < 0.05) only for three of them (rs2235529-WNT4, rs6907340-LOC100506885, and rs10757272-CDKN2B-AS1).

Reproductive rate was negatively related to the effect of wetland amount on bird population abundance and the effect of reproductive rate was marginally significant (ES Z r = −0.25; 95% CI: −0.506, −0.001; p = 0.050) while the effect of body length was non-significant (ES Z r = 0.12; 95% CI: −0.056, 0.261; p = 0.205).