“marginally significant”

In contrast, the simple effect of optimism was marginally significant, F (3, 1631) = 2.58, p = 0.052, η 2 p = 0.005.

After controlling for other variables in the model, DUB showed a marginally significant association with preoperative HR (β = 0.427, p = 0.052).

The differences in the incidence of pharyngeal complications at different time points between and within groups were marginally significant ( P = 0.052 and 0.060, respectively).

Hypothesis 4: Nature connectedness Nature connectedness also increased significantly across the three conditions combined (M diff = 1.23, t (95) = 9.75, p < 0.000), and partially supporting H4b, CG-VR was associated with significantly greater nature connectedness than TV (B = 0.67, p = 0.015), and marginally significant greater connectedness than 360-VR (B = 0.52, p = 0.052). 3.6.

Nevertheless, a marginally significant effect of social influence was found also in the Het Group ( β = 0.02 , χ 2 (1) = 3.78, P = 0.052).

A 2 (set size) × 2 (exposure time) × 3 (type of test face) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that the main effect of the exposure time was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.945, p = 0.052, η 2 p = 0.064.

The results showed a significant decrease in negativity in the More-EYE condition and a marginally significant ( p = 0.052) increase in positivity in the Less-EYE condition ( Table 6 ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between time and group F (4, 55) = 2.52, p = .052, η p 2 = .16, with ratings being higher in the Early Mismatch group than in the Late Mismatch group at both first and last time points, p = .001 and p = .002, respectively.

However, the difference of TLR4 expression in the CA1 region between the WT and WT+EtOH groups was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

inverted) and channel cluster location (left, central, and occipital) as within subjects factors demonstrated a main effect of orientation, F (1, 15) = 5.781, p = 0.030, η p 2 = 0.278, a main effect of location, F (2, 30) = 9.047, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.376, and a marginally significant interaction between orientation and location, F (2, 30) = 3.273, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.179.

There was only a marginally significant effect on the AUC for glucose between the HFC and LFC (t 12 = 2.160 p = 0.052; Fig. 2H ).

These analyses did not detect a significant density effect on invasive snails ( p = .336) but did reveal a marginally significant effect of density treatment on embryo production for native snails ( p = .052; Table 5 ).

Plant species had significant effects on the OTU richness of fungi inhabiting leaves ( F = 3.026, P = 0.005), roots ( F = 4.550, P < 0.001), and soils ( F = 2.003, P = 0.052, marginally significant) (Table S1).

affinis (one-way ANOVA: F 2,6 = 112.4; P < 0.0001; R 2 = 0.96) and marginally significant for nauplii of A. bifilosa ( F 2,6 = 5.043; P = 0.052; R 2 = 0.63) and older copepodites of P. acuspes ( F 2,6 = 4.258; P = 0.071; R 2 = 0.58) collected at different stations.

Beta diversity, assessed at the feature level, showed a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.052) and reached significance at the class level ( p = 0.035).

Only the indirect effects of identity entrepreneurship by team members via social identity continuity on job satisfaction and loneliness were now marginally significant ( p = 0.052 for the indirect effect on loneliness; p = 0.065 for the indirect effect on job satisfaction).

On the other hand, the difference in the mean corrected Prevosti genetic distances among fused pairs (0.231 ± 0.002) and among genotypes fused to form the detected chimeras in the prevalence study (0.216 ± 0.005) was marginally significant (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon = 4; p = 0.052).

For the subgroup with low facilitation in the pre-change epoch (Figure 4 C) we observed a marginally significant main effect of configuration [ F (1, 5) = 6.41; p = 0.052] and a significant change by block interaction [ F (4, 20) = 3.95; p < 0.05], all other main effects and interactions (notably including the configuration by change interaction) were not significant (all p > 0.180).

The frequency of RAS mutation differed between the two groups, although there was a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.052).

Mean log parasite density was significantly lower in lowland urban by 0.371 (95%CI: 0.188–0.554, p < 0.001) and marginally significant in highlands (coef = -0.268; 95%CI: -0.539 – -0.002, p = 0.052), compared to lowland rural.

Correlation in the baseline group was marginally significant (r s = 0.75, p = 0.052).

on, median) was 2·73 (0·30, 2·73) log 10 c.f.u./ml in G1 (no samples were positive in G2). Results of mathematical and statistical modeling In the univariate analysis, the effect of environmental contamination level significantly influenced the transmission rate ( P = 0·0002), the group effect was marginally significant ( P = 0·052) and the strain effect was not significant.

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.

MMSE deterioration was marginally significant (Wave 1 mean 29.29; Wave 2 mean 29.24; t 1946 = -1.94, p = .052).

There were no differences between the MBSR and SME groups in mindfulness ( F (1,59) = 3.251, p = .77, partial η 2 = 0.55), and a marginally significant difference in anxiety levels [ F (1,59) = 3.93, p = .052, partial η 2 = 0.63].