“marginally significant”

Gender by stress was marginally significant ( p = 0.055) with females having higher levels of stress.

In the final model (model 3), the association with sedentary screen-based behavior was marginally significant ( p = 0.055).

Subsequently, ground composition (PC1 ground) showed a positive relationship to overall prey biomass (P = 0.027, R 2 = 0.54) and a positive relationship with Hymenoptera biomass on the ground (P = 0.007, R 2 = 0.72), underlain by a marginally significant, positive, association between Hymenoptera and prey biomass from ground sampling (P = 0.055, R 2 = 0.48) ( Fig 5F ).

Post-hoc tests indicated that there were significant increases in ARAT scores between Pre and Post ( p = 0.015, Bonferroni corrected), marginally significant between Pre and Post6month ( p = 0.055, Bonferroni corrected).

We observed significant associations between both for midazolam (r = −0.48; p = 002), methylphenidate (r = −0.56; p < 0.001), haloperidol (r = −0.52; p < 0.001), olanzapine (r = −0.62; p < 0.001), low (r = −0.34; p = 0.028) and high (r = −0.57; p < 0.001) dose of risperidone, a marginally significant effect for escitalopram (r = −0.30; p = 0.055) and no significant effect for ketamine (r = 0.02; p = 0.913).

MXR and heme oxygenase showed a marginally significant relationship (heme oxygenase: Pearson test, p -value = 0.055, MXR: Spearman test, p -value = 0.08).

The interaction term age ∗ sex was marginally significant ( F 2,39 = 3.13, p = 0.055); mRC3 expression was higher in adult females compared to adult males ( p = 0.0099; Figure 4C ). mRC4 expression did not vary with age ( p = 0.68), sex ( p = 0.77), or their interaction ( p = 0.088; Figure 4D ).

The main effect of time was marginally significant ( F (1, 283) = 3.702, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.013), the main effect of group was not significant ( F (1, 283) = 0.471, p = 0.493, η p 2 = 0.002), but the time × group interaction was significant ( F (1, 283) = 10.409, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.035).

We found increased abundances of Deferribacteres and Bacteroidetes in the aged mice both marginally significant ( p = 0.055, p = 0.11, respectively).

In the latter case, however, there was a marginally significant effect of group ( p < 0.055) with a small effect size.

This model was marginally significant ( F 4, 39 = 2.54, p = 0.055, model fit: AICc = 737.16; see also Table 3 ).

However, the main effect of the vertical transition was significant (F(2,2289) = 5.61, p = .004, 1− β = .859), while it was marginally significant for the vertical oscillation (F(2,2289) = 2.91, p = .055, 1− β = .570).

Results Offspring performance Source population ( F 1,193 = 10.450, P = 0.0014) and maternal diet ( F 1,193 = 33.577, P < 0.0001) had a significant effect on egg mass, with a marginally significant interaction between source population and maternal diet ( F 1,193 = 3.727, P = 0.055).

Data of two participants (one LL- and one UL-CRPS) were identified as influential (Cook’s distance > 0.15) 43 and had been removed from this analysis, however, retaining them in the data resulted in a consistent but marginally significant correlation ( p = 0.055; Supplementary Figure S6 ).

A marginally significant parameter suggested that reports of more calmness were associated with activity increases ( b = 1.031, p = 0.055).

The main effect of the characteristic words on the P3 peak was marginally significant ( F (1,17) = 4.26, P = 0.055, η 2 = 0.20), with the target words "Negative words" inducing a significantly higher peak ( M = 5.84) than "Positive words" ( M = 5.39).

72%; RR ratio: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00–1.24), which was marginally significant ( p =0.055).

Supratidal invertebrates Taxa richness in the fallout traps had a trend towards being lowest at Restore Low, but there were no significant differences, although the pairwise difference between Protect Low and Restore Low was marginally significant ( p = 0.055) ( S1 Fig , Tables 1 , 2 , S3 Table ).

In the regression model with initial hsCRP as independent and initial BMI, body fat and pre-study alcohol consumption as independent variables, BMI and alcohol consumption were marginally significant ( p = 0.055 and 0.056 resp.; adjusted R 2 = 0.19, p < 0.0001; data not shown).

OS in the thermal ablation group was numerically longer than that in the CPD group with marginally significant difference ( P = 0.055).

Furthermore, the MANCOVA on the same aPET ROI and the bilateral OFC fNIRS revealed a significant group effect [ F (6, 174) = 6.64, p < .001], leading to a significant effect on amyloid PET [ F (3, 88) = 11.46, p < .001] and a marginally significant effect on fNIRS [ F (3, 88) = 2.63, p = .055], Overall, Fig 6 shows that the amyloid PET signal tends to better differentiate the AD group from others, and the fNIRS signal tends to differentiate the SMI group from the other groups. fNIRS and anatomical measures When the LME model was fitted to the anatomical measures, no significant correlation between the fNIRS ROIs and gray volume or cortical thickness was found above and beyond what the group difference could explain.

There was a marginally significant interaction between F0 and weight ( b = −0.02, SE = 0.01, t (134.60) = −1.94, p = 0.055), indicating that women's body weight moderated the association between F0 and jealousy perception.

melanogaster (see Discussion), showed a significant down-regulation in diapausing and reproducing females compared to young females and a marginally significant (FC = 1.8 and p = 0.055) up-regulation in diapausing females compared to reproducing females.

The BCVA after surgery was marginally significant different ( p = 0.055), which was 0.17 ± 0.20 in pediatric and 0.39 ± 0.59 in adult.

Consistent with previous results regarding the UG and the DG, we found a marginally significant main effect for the Game: F (1, 90) = 3.78, p = 0.055, η 2 p = 0.04, indicating that the proportion of equal split offers was higher for UG participants ( M = 70.0%, SD = 40.9) compared to DG participants ( M = 55.1%, SD = 45.9).