“marginally significant”

More interestingly, the 3-way interaction of stress by secondary coping by origin was marginally significant ( β = -.23, p = .052).

no-deviant trials, t(15) = 28.45, p < .001, as well as a marginally significant difference between pupil latency until maximum on hit vs. missed trials t(15) = -2.11, p = .052.

There was a significant interaction between location and condition, F (2, 100) = 6.281, p = 0.003, np 2 = 0.112, and a marginally significant interaction between time, location, and condition, F (2, 100) = 3.047, p = 0.052, np 2 = 0.057.

Stagnant water in premises was marginally significant across sub-districts (χ 2 = 12.495, df = 6, p = 0.052) and was reported in fewer yards (13.4%) as opposed to those without (85.8%).

In addition, we found a marginally significant increase in support for the outgroup (unlimited vs. control, p = 0.052; unlimited vs. limited, p = 0.075) and no significant difference in support for the ingroup (unlimited vs. control, p = 0.72; unlimited vs. limited, p = 0.42).

Mendelian randomization analysis results Using the IVW method, a marginally significant positive association was observed between CASP3 levels and the risk of ASD (OR = 1.660, 95% CI: 0.995–2.769, p = 0.052).

The difference between faculty groups was most evident in the constructed response items where the difference was marginally significant (paired Student’s t test, t = 2.04, P = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 0.245).

Increasing numbers of targets attained were also associated, in a graded fashion, with decreased mortality ( P = 0.030), fewer hospital admissions and days ( P < 0.001 for both), and lower costs ( P = 0.029); these trends remained statistically significant for all outcomes after adjustment ( P < 0.001), except cost, which was marginally significant ( P = 0.052).

Regarding Caring and Sharing attitudes, we observed a similar main effect of time ( Caring : F (1,181) = 34.373, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.160; Sharing : F (1,181) = 58.725, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.245) and condition ( Caring : F (1,181) = 17.959, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.090; Sharing : F (1,181) = 22.442, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.110); however, we only identified a marginally significant effect of time × condition interaction effects on the Sharing variable (F (1,181) = 3.815, p = 0.052, ⴄp 2 = 0.021).

This effect was absent in the OFA (F (1,25) = 2.4, p = 0.13), with a marginally significant interaction (F (1,24) = 4.2, p = 0.052) between region (FFA vs.

This way of classifying children into rotators and non-rotators had a marginally significant relation with age ( r = .25, p = .052) but a clear relationship with verbal intelligence ( r = .40, p = .002). 2.2.3.

The handling of afterbirth or placenta was marginally significant (OR = 8.9, 95% CI: 1.0–81.1, p = 0.052) and slaughter of cattle significant (OR = 5.3, 95% CI: 1.4–19.6, p = 0.013) in the mixed effects logistic regression model fit for (RBT ® , IgM ELISA ® and IgG ELISA ® ) seropositivity amongst persons tested.

17 , 21 As with JNK inhibition, this had no statistically significant effect on IL‐6 mRNA at pH 7.4 (Figure 3C,D ) but gave a marginally significant blunting (0.87 ± 0.03 fold decrease, p = 0.052) of the IL‐6 mRNA response at pH 7.1 (Figure 3D ).

Controlling for age and sex did not alter findings for the amygdala ( r = −.51, P = .046); however, findings for the vmPFC became marginally significant ( r = −.49, P = .052).

The interaction between the duration of the study and age was marginally significant ( p = 0.052), suggesting that younger people (18–34) wanted to spend less time on a study than the 45+ age category.

A notable secondary finding is the high frequency of tibial fractures among FES cases (49%) and their marginally significant association in the adjusted model (aOR = 1.55; p = 0.052), reinforcing their established clinical relevance.

Among men, null associations were observed between all anthropometric measures with incident DN in the multivariate analysis although the 3 rd quartile of WHtR showed marginally significant results ( P = 0.052).

Marginally significant inverse correlations were identified between the values of b1 and age ( r = −0.119, p = .052) and between r 2 and Gross Motor Function Classification System ( r = −0.280, p = .054), which did not occur with the Manual Ability Classification System.

This analysis indicated that there was a marginally significant effect of condition (β = −.36, SE = .18, z = −1.94, p = .052), where participants were slightly more accurate in the phonological condition compared with the semantic condition.

The univariate analysis also reveals a trend for FC to reduce the increase in financial difficulty, which is marginally significant (β = −0.18 ± 0.094, p = 0.052) ( Table 3 ).

Step 2 led to a marginally significant increase in the variance explained, ΔF (1, 72) = 3.90, p = 0.052.

A stratified analysis of tumor clinical stage indicated that the curative effect of CCRT+AC on patients with N 2–3 disease was marginally significant (HR=0.35, 95% CI=0.11–1.06, P =0.052).

The interaction between ethnicity of the stimuli used and internet frequency was marginally significant, F(2,83) = 3.001, p = 0.052, suggesting that masculinity preferences for the three types of male faces differed depending on the amount of internet used (Fig. 3 ).

The frequency of dragging was explained by a marginally significant species × treatment interaction term (F 1, 75 = 3.89, p = 0.052; table 2c ).

Only the inter-subject oxy-Hb variance in Z Init of ch.6 demonstrated a marginally significant correlation with WM modality dominance (ch.6: r = −0.40, p = 0.052; other channels: −0.32 < r < 0.19, p ’s > 0.13).