“marginally significant”

Meanwhile, the difference in cognitive functioning was marginally significant (CF, p = 0.054).

Significant Social Concern Items: " I worry that other people will notice my anxiety " (Item 4): 13.3% of females versus 7.7% of males, χ 2 (1) = 8.71, p = 0.003, φ = 0.17 (small effect; marginally significant after Bonferroni: p = 0.054).

Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons indicated HR-ASD looked at the referent less than LR controls (marginally significant at p = 0.054) and HR-TYP ( p < 0.001).

BFOM was a marginally significant mediator between structural barriers and KOOS-12 (coeff=−0.36, 95% CI=(−0.86, –0.02); p=0.054).

The average Cobb angle was significantly lower in the HSS group than in the other groups on postoperative day 1 ( p = 0.022, one-way ANOVA); however, marginally significant differences were observed among the three groups in Scheffe’s post hoc test (HSS < IS, p = 0.054; HSS < LS, p = 0.058).

The difference in PFS between pre-NACT CD8 high and pre-NACT CD8 low patients was marginally significant ( P = 0.054) ( Table 3 ).

Tie2 defined vascular responders demonstrated an improved PFS HR of 0.56 compared to vascular non-responders, which was significant in univariate analysis ( p = 0.034) and marginally significant in multivariate analysis ( p = 0.054).

The effects of PM(10) were marginally significant (RR = 1.06; p = 0.054) for respiratory mortality but not for the other outcomes (p > 0.135).

All relationships were significant (p≤0.001), positive and strong according to Cohen’s effect size convention [ 35 ], with the exception of the condition of BKPUs perturbed towards the sound limb which was of low strength and marginally significant (p = 0.054).

However, the main effect of condition was not significant, while the main effect of group was marginally significant, F (1, 68) = 3.86, p = 0.054, partial η 2 = 0.054.

N170 Amplitude The ANOVA for N170 peak amplitude ( Table 4 and Figure 5 ) also showed a significant main effect of emotion types [ F (1,44)=6.62, p =0.014, η 2 =0.13] and a marginally significant four-way interaction among emotion type, cue validity, electrode location, and age [ F (1,44)=3.93, p =0.054, η 2 =0.08].

The comparisons between high-confident responses (confidence rating of 5) and less-confident responses (confidence rating below 5) in false alarms show a marginally significant difference [ F (1, 34.965) = 4.663; p = 0.054; η 2 p = 0.298] between the mean dilation to high-confident responses (2.9%) and less-confident responses (−0.78%), as depicted in Figure 5 .

Furthermore, marginally significant trend was observed for the prevalence of CKD (44.16% in phase 2 vs. 51.65% in phase 5, p value = 0.054).

A marginally significant difference was found between the pre- and post-dermal suction SWV values at 0° ( r = 0.39, P = 0.054, 95% CI [−0.521, 0.004]).

On the BDI, responders showed marginally significant improvement (pre: 4.08 ± 4.79; post: 2.62 ± 3.78, t = 2.13, p = 0.054) compared with nonresponders (pre: 7.36 ± 6.1; post: 5.91 ± 5.82, t = 0.967, p = 0.356), who did not have significant improvement.

For cueing costs (neutral – invalid), however, the ANOVA on accuracy scores revealed a marginally significant interaction between cue duration and frequency, F (2, 94) = 3.01, p = .054, η p 2 = .06, but no significant main effects.

There also was a marginally significant correlation between ratings of masked faces and attitudes towards others wearing or not wearing masks ( r = .14, p = .054).

PCS scores were marginally significant predictors of ∆I ( p = 0.054).

The results showed that for the below-median group there was no significant difference between the PC and VR recall scores ( F(1,37) = 0.73, p = 0.399, partial η 2 = 0.02), whereas for the above-median group, the difference was marginally significant despite the decreased statistical power of these analyses ( F(1,31) = 4.03, p = 0.054, partial η 2 = 0.11).

When comparing the normative lifetime exposure ratings of first presentations in the study phase, we found a marginally significant main effect of lifetime exposure in the LPC time window, F (1, 42) = 3.94, p = 0.054, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\hat{\eta }}_{G}^{2}$$\end{document} η ˆ G 2 = 0.007.

The effect of season × treatment was marginally significant on the CP of L. chinensis (df = 4, F = 2.5, P = 0.054).

2A ), and while there was no main effect of warming or duration, their interaction was marginally significant ( P = 0.054; all P -values presented in Table 1 ).

36.0 months, HR 2.43, 95% CI 0.83–7.15, P =0.087); in the multivariable model, the effect remained marginally significant (HR 3.01, 95% CI 0.98–9.20, P =0.054) ( Table 2 ).

There is, however, a marginally significant interaction between measurement points and SES clusters in the Satisfaction with Life Scale [ F (2, 182) = 2.97, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.032].

Nevertheless, participants who wear dentures tended to have higher RCI with marginally significant difference (p = 0.054).