“marginally significant”

Teacher qualification is marginally significant (β = 0.19, p = 0.053).

2E ). Trait variation in natural field populations The interaction between population and elevation was significant for internode length and shoot length ( Table 3 ) and marginally significant for leaf dry mass ( P = 0.053), indicating that the magnitude of response to elevation in these traits varies by population.

TSHI also had a marginally significant negative association with IL-8 in Model 1 (OR=0.538; 95%CI=0.287, 1.009; P =0.053), but not Model 3 ( P =0.280).

Conversely, treatment with 50 mg/kg GET73 increased the number of (a) alley errors in session 1 ( P < 0.01, Mann–Whitney test; Figure 4 A) with a marginally significant effect in session 2 ( P = 0.053, Mann–Whitney test), (b) swimming reversals in session 1 ( P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney test; Figure 4 B), and (c) working-memory errors in session 1 ( P < 0.01, Mann–Whitney test), with a marginally significant effect in session 2 ( P = 0.080, Mann–Whitney test; Figure 4 C).

The group effect was marginally significant [ F (1,53) = 3.914, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.069], indicating that the disengaging of AVGPs was more efficient than that of NAVGPs.

Analysis of the distance the rats covered in the open field revealed a marginally significant main effect for treatment (F (1,46) = 3.96, p = 0.053).

Pairwise comparisons revealed the largest significant differences between AF—AL and AF—AP ( p = 0.009 for both), followed by AA—AF ( p = 0.019) and AA—AP ( p = 0.040); a marginally significant difference between AA—AL ( p = 0.053); and a close association between AL and AP ( p = 0.068); however, after correction for multiple sampling, differences were significant only for the AF—AL and AF—AP comparisons.

Specifically, in the stress group, there was a positive association between punishment severity bias and the activity of rACC ( r = 0.383, p = 0.053, marginally significant) and rPCC ( r = 0.633, p < 0.001).

For ‘target absent’ displays, a marginally significant interaction between set size and group was found ( F (4.67,179.68) = 2.82, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.056).

A chi-square analysis was performed and the effect was marginally significant, indicating increased forgetting over time [χ 2 (1) = 3.75, p = 0.053; Cramer’s φ = 0.31].

Cyberbullying did not significantly differ by age at sexual debut among males but showed a marginally significant difference among females ( p = 0.053).

This difference was marginally significant, t (14) = 2.11, p = 0.053.

Although marginally significant ( p = 0.053) in the discovery cohort, SAA2 was selected due to its function as an indicator of special humoral immune responses in B-cell lymphoma induced by germinal center–associated lymphoma (HGAL) genes ( 49 ).

However, the gender-stratified analyses revealed marginally significant effects in heterozygote model analyses in women ( P = 0.053).

The first model was marginally significant [ F (1,632) = 12.15, Δ R 2 = 0.006, p = 0.053] and the second was statistically significant [Δ F (1,631) = 5.51, Δ R 2 = 0.009, p = 0.019].

In the resulting model, the density of voles in year t − 1 became marginally significant (GLMM, coefficient estimate = 0.12, CI: 0.00 – 0.25, p = .053).

A two-tailed one-sample t -test comparing the combined convexity-preference scores to chance (0.5) showed a marginally significant convexity preference overall [ t (23) = 2.04, p = 0.053].

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the difference between gain and neutral conditions was marginally significant; z = –1.63, p = .053 (one-tailed), r = –.27.

For male left hand 2D:4D there was a marginally significant relationship with percent of male deaths ( B = 1122.12, SE B = 527.77, beta = 0.47, p = .053) and no relationship for female left hand 2D:4D ( B = 579.00, SE B = 375.07, beta = 0.34, p = .15). 4.

Additionally, a marginally significant correlation was observed between the normalized power in the beta-1 band over the contralesional hemisphere and FMA-UE scores (r = 0.417, p = 0.053).

The 5-year RFS rate was 64% in the observation group and 76% in the chemotherapy group, which was a marginally significant difference (p=0.053).

In the time window of significant Ec–Ee activity for OC sites, correlation with behavior was marginally significant ( r = 0.45, P = 0.053; Fig. 2 D 2 ).

The main effect of RT on accuracy was significant in the 20 min condition (χ 2 = 5.66, edf = 1.00, p = 0.017) and marginally significant in the 10 min condition (χ 2 = 6.15, edf = 1.75, p = 0.053), indicating that slower RTs were associated with a lower accuracy on average; there was no main effect for the Unlimited time condition (χ 2 = 1.82, edf = 1.34, p = 0.318).

The MSMM without predicted baseline, while marginally significant, failed to detect a statistically significant treatment effect and is likely underpowered (p = 0.053).

One word-level feature implicated in past studies of speech in dementia was significant at a threshold of p < .05 after correction: The usage of nouns ( r = .24, p = .020) and the usage of empty words were marginally significant ( r = −.21, p = .053).