“marginally significant”

40 Here, sex was revealed as having a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.015) on age at onset ( table 1 , model 1c, r 2 = 0.257, p = 1.2 × 10 −14 ).

However, the changes of FC between the right putamen and right thalamus showed marginally significant correlation with the change of the executive function ( r = 0.7071, p = 0.0150, Figure 6 ).

In planned post-hoc comparisons, we found no significant differences at each frequency between the M100 latency to the pure sinusoid and the M100 latency to the tone complex, though the difference between the M100 response latency to the 100 Hz sinusoid and the 100 Hz inferred pitch tone complex (12-13-23-24) was marginally significant (t(8) = 2.48; p = 0.015, n.s. due to multiple-comparisons correction, all others p>0.12).

For MK, an interaction between sub‐bundle and age was found to be marginally significant ( F 1.6,4269.5 = 4.7, p = .01528) only when considering the subjects for whom all bundles could be delineated.

Surprisingly, female-biased genes (Fem-FC3 and Fem-6-SP) had significantly higher dN/dS rates compared with UB ones ( p -value = 2.876 × 10 −04 for Fem-FC3 and p -value = 2.725 × 10 −05 for Fem-6-SP, significant after Bonferroni correction), whereas Male-FC3 genes had only a marginally significant faster rate ( p- value = 1.558 × 10 −02 , not significant after Bonferroni correction) (Fig. 3 ).

Oblast‐level differences remained marginally significant in the adjusted models of EBF ( p = 0.016) and BoF ( p = 0.024), while the association with the mode of interview was no longer significant. 4 DISCUSSION Adequate nutrition in infancy and early childhood provides a foundation for children's subsequent growth and development (Olofin et al., 2013 ).

In females, but not males, insulin sensitivity improved (HOMA%S +35%, p = 0.016, marginally significant) with longer fast duration (16 h vs. 12 h), but paradoxically, postprandial glycaemia was higher (glucose iAUC +37%, p = 0.002).

1D ), while NLRP6 expression was marginally significant (p = 0.016; Fig. 1E ).

Nevertheless, after Bonferroni corrections (based on 9 pairwise tests), a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.016) appeared in the survival of R × S progenies between the two types of corn ( Table 1) .

Post hoc analysis of the two-way interactions showed a significant pre-to-post increase in peer-rated cooperation in the enriched PE group ( t (90) = −3.21, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.26) but a non-significant decrement in the traditional PE group ( p = 0.166), leading to a large, though marginally significant (for adjusted p < 0.016) group difference at post-test ( t (179) = 2.38, p = 0.018, Cohen’s d = 0.62) ( Figure 5 ).

Hyperopia Group and Astigmatism Group As shown in Table 1B , in the hyperopia group, the three devices had significant differences in SE, DS, and DC with CR (P < 0.05), notably, the difference in DS for the Columba 300 was marginally significant (P = 0.016); in the astigmatism group, all devices showed significant differences in SE, DS, and DC from CR (P < 0.001), but YD-SX-A exhibited the smallest mean difference in DC (mean difference −0.19 D).

There is only a weak, marginally significant negative correlation between the level of resistance and fitness cost (Supplementary Fig. 1 , Spearman’s rho = −0.24, P = 0.016 ( N = 98)), and this correlation becomes non-significant after controlling for drug type ( P = 0.6 and P = 0.39 for antibiotics ( N = 60) and AMPs ( N = 38) respectively, Spearman’s correlation).

However, after Bonferroni correction (α-level = 0.0125) the effect on wing-bar brightness would turn to marginally significant ( P = 0.016).

However, an explicit test of H10 vs H00 for Ssa 197 was not significant ( P = 0.13), while an explicit test of H01 vs H00 for Ssa G7SP test was marginally significant ( P = 0.016), making it unlikely that selection had acted at these loci.

Specifically, alpha power showed a marginally significant decrease by the total KI score increase (t=-2.58, p=0.016), and the β/α ratio shown the opposite pattern (t=2.065, p=0.050).

Of interest, the interaction between primary psychopathy and trait anxiety scores was marginally significant on the learning rate for positive PE in the domain of losses (Δ R 2 = 0.187, F (3,44) = 3.839, p = 0.016, β = 0.337, p = 0.054; Table 3 ).

Only the 8 th largest component (PC8) was found to be significantly associated with P DD ( t = −3.033, p = 0.005, p corr = 0.027) and marginally significant for P Sz ( t = −2.560, p = 0.016, p corr = 0.055).

Little’s MCAR test was not significant for Set A, indicating that the data were missing completely at random, but was marginally significant ( p = 0.016) for Set B, suggesting that those missing values may be missing at random.

However, we did find a marginally significant correlation of genome size with TE count ( P = 0.0165).

For the current analyses, we used the Brief COPE subscales showing negative, at least marginally significant, cross-sectional associations with psychopathological symptoms at baseline: active coping (AcC; r = −0.05, p = 0.017), emotional support (EmS; r = −0.04, p = 0.065), and positive reframing (PoR; r = −0.06, p = 0.013).

The differences between fully edentulous and complete dentures would have become marginally significant ( p = 0.017).

However, the difference was marginally significant where the haplotype analysis was corrected for multiple testing with significant P<0.017.

15–20 years after colonization for each), we found significant differences in minimum frequency ( p = 0.006; estimate ± 95% CI = −0.04 ± 0.03; d ± 95% CI = 0.62 ± 0.44) and marginally significant differences in maximum frequency ( p = 0.017; estimate ± 95% CI = –0.025 ± 0.02; d ± 95% CI = 0.54 ± 0.44), but not frequency bandwidth ( p = 0.39; estimate ± 95% CI = 0.015 ± 0.03; d ± 95% CI = −0.19 ± 0.44) and not trill rate ( p = 0.45; estimate ± 95% CI = −0.63 ± 1.63; d ± 95% CI = −0.17 ± 0.44).

Mutating basic residues had only a marginally significant effect ( P = 0.017).

Effects for some anxiety indicators became non-significant after adjustment for QIDS score and only MASQ-AA became marginally significant ( P = 0.017) after adjustment for SSRI use, but all indicators remained significant when adjusting for BMI (all P -values <0.012) (Table S3 ).