“marginally significant”

When we compared the module eigengene values between clinical groups we found that two modules, Mod5 (green) and Mod7 (black), were marginally significant (T-test; unadjusted P-value < 0.01) and suggestive (T-test; unadjusted P-value < 0.05) respectively with one-year relapse free survival (RFS) (Fig. 1 c).

20 There was a marginally significant association between race and antibody response ( P =0.01), suggesting that African Americans had slightly higher responses than whites.

The PGS based on our generated summary statistics was able to predict a small but marginally significant ( P = 0.01) fraction of the variance in a test of arithmetic achievement.

Findings also suggest a marginally significant relationship between identifying as having a “Other” political affiliation (b = 0.176, p ≤ 0.010) and greater support for gun control, compared to identifying as a Republican.

Given that a marginally significant difference occurred in the overall reaction times among the groups (F (2,256) = 7.79, p < 0.01, the RTs of the open-skill, closed-skill, and control groups were 618 ms, 638 ms, and 664 ms, respectively), the efficiency of the three attentional networks was divided by the overall RT of each participant.

We did find marginally significant differences in Shannon’s H between these populations ( P = 0.01 and 0.03 at 3,000 and 6,500 rarefaction depths, Kruskal–Wallis test).

In the native speakers’ error rates, there was a cue effect in the predicted direction for long words that was marginally significant in the item analysis, t 1 (19) = 3.34, p < 0.01; t 2 (20) = 1.73, p = 0.09, whereas it went into the opposite direction for short words, t 1 (19) = –3.21, p < 0.01; t 2 (20) = –2.51, p < 0.05.

Furthermore, the result of Egger’s test also revealed a marginally significant publication bias (p < 0.01) (Table 4 ).

Crucially, there was a marginally significant correlation between the mean RTs on the digit-number word matching task and the standardized arithmetic test scores, r p (48) = −.36, p = .010.

Unexpectedly, the relationship was also positive with nitrogen use, albeit not statistically significant (except for Nodularia , which was marginally significant; slope = 0.36; P = 0.01, n = 2162; Table 2 ).

Although some of the evidential value testing techniques I used to evaluate Wisman and Shrira ( 2020 ) were more novel and complex, many were not (e.g., eye-balling the implausibly repetitious “borderline/marginally significant” nature of the p values of their three focal tests, p = .01, .044, and .054, respectively).

Understanding ( t = −1.72, p = 0.079, d = −0.15) and protective functions ( t = 1.52, p = 0.065, d = 0.17) were marginally significant ( p < 0.01), and female volunteers only revealed higher scores in the understanding function ( M Female = 5.86, SD Female = 1.03; M Male = 5.70, SD Male = 0.98; protective: M Female = 3.57, SD Female = 1.57; M Male = 3.83, SD Male = 1.57). 4.

It is evident that the STRF differences faded within 0.8 s of the target interval, though remaining marginally significant (paired t -test: P <0.010, n =151); they completely disappeared during the second passive session (paired t -test: P <0.520, n =151).

P-values were calculated and statistical significance reported as highly significant (***) if p≤0.01, significant (**) if p≤0.05, and marginally significant (*) if p≤0.1.

Among those significant eQTL SNP-feature pairs that were well-imputed, polymorphic and expressed in the replication dataset (~84% of pairs, ~95% of eFeatures, see Methods , Figure S6 ), >94% had consistent directionality in the two datasets, between 75.7% (eTxns) and 81.5% (eJxns) were directionally consistent and marginally significant (at p < 0.01), and just over half (52.1%−57.0%) were directionally consistent and FDR-corrected significant (published set, p<10 −5 ).

The subscales lack of resources, lack of skill, and lack of willpower and were all marginally significant and positively associated ( p < 0.01; Supplementary Data ).

However, InFlu B also produced a marginally significant signal ( p < 0.01), indicating partial cross-reactivity and thus reduced specificity for the SARS-CoV-2 N protein.

Limited by the low number of modules, the probability ρ( k ) of a module interacting with k others showed a marginally significant fit to a power law: ρ( k )∼ k −0.77 ( P =0.010, see Figure 5A ).

For the Average duration of whole fixations ( Table 7 ), the main effect of expertise level was not significant (B = 0.03, p = 0.59), while the main effect of content type was marginally significant (B = -0.11, p = 0.01).

A p value <0.05 was considered marginally significant, and a p value <0.01 was considered significant.

In general, the main effects were strong and significant, while the two‐way interactions were marginally significant ( p > .01).

Even though the effect of force levels on RRTs was at the first test marginally significant due to the huge variability across the subjects, we found a highly significant modulation of force level and trial types on the normalized scores (main effect of force condition: F (1,9) = 11.00; p < 0.01 and main effect of trial type: F (2,18) = 22.04; p < 0.001).

The ANOVA testing for differences in the magnitude of these effects was marginally significant ( F (2,22) = 5.187, p = .01), with post-hoc tests indicating that subjects reported equivalent responses to AMP and ALC, but liked both drugs more than THC (see Fig 3 and S1 Table ).

The level of shading of the dot indicates the statistical significance for support of the QTL: * P < 0.001 or reported as highly significant; * 0.001 < P < 0.01 or reported as significant; and * 0.01 < P < 0.05 or reported as marginally significant. statistically significant in some sense.

The impact on outpatient services revenue was marginally significant ( P =.01) and negative, suggesting that adoption led to at least a temporary drop in revenue, on average, in comparison with the control group.