“marginally significant”

Although no pairwise differences were detected in combined photosynthetic N allocation (N P , all P > 0.3; Table S2 ), forest invaders in both their away and home ranges showed small but marginally significant increases in N L (23% and 27% compared to 19%; P = 0.0557, 0.0748, respectively; Fig. 4 ).

There were no statistical- ly significant differences between the groups exposed to radon 1600 WLM and tobacco smoke 60 hr or 100 hr compared with rats exposed to radon 1000 WLM only, but there was a marginally significant difference between the group exposed to radon 1600 WLM and tobacco smoke 30 hr combined compared with the group exposed to radon 1600 WLM only (p = 0.0557, Fisher's exact test).

Interestingly, four social consistent OGs, homeobox protein ARX, mitochondrial transcription factor A (TFAM), myoneurin, and LOC102655824 (uncharacterized) , are annotated with the “DNA binding” GO term (GO:0003677), a marginally significant enrichment relative to expectations based upon the number of total OGs annotated with DNA binding (2.7-fold enrichment; P = 5.57e−2, hypergeometric test of overlap) ( Table S14 ).

The induction was lower in the YIDDst transformants than that of WT, yet only at a marginally significant level ( p = 0.0557). 3.

However, role-specific training was marginally significant (p = 0.0558), suggesting a possible relationship with higher ability.

For BMI, the P value was significant in sample 1 ( P = 4.23×10 -3 ), and marginally significant in sample 2 ( P = 5.58×10 -2 ).

The positive association between traditional gender-role attitudes and experience of physical NCS was not found among boys, but marginally significant (OR = 1.41, p = 0.0558) among girls.

The t ‐test and ANOVA results showed a marginally significant difference in capacitance retention percentage ( t ‐statistic = −1.9, p ‐value = 0.0558) between the NiCo 2 S 4 and NiCo 2 S 4 /graphene composites, suggesting potential differences in cyclic stability.

On fast DC responses (gray bars, 5b ), the early modulation was significantly higher ( p = 0.0132), while the late selection was reduced relative to slow (gray bars, 5c ) responses (marginally significant, p = 0.0558).

Donor age at or above 35 years and the presence of donor‐specific antibodies with a history of antibody‐mediated rejection (both p < 0.05) were associated with worse graft survival, while medication non‐adherence was associated despite being marginally significant ( p = 0.056).

The difference of the number of scars was marginally significant between the two groups of controls (p = 0.056).

For women, GL3 had a marginally significant effect on the femininity/masculinity index (path coefficient = −0.249, P = 0.056).

Flax-seeds were more frequently consumed in the n -6/ n -3 < 10 group but the differences were marginally significant ( p = 0.056) and no other differences were observed.

However, for IM amplitudes there was only a marginally significant difference between examiner 2 and 3 ( p = 0.056).

Furthermore, the response time to fearful expressions showed a marginally significant increase in the MBCT group at the end of the study ( p = 0.056) ( Table 3 and Figure 3B ).

On correction for potential confounders, DM remained significantly associated with defective mobilization of CD133 + ( P = 0.015), CD34 + CD133 + ( P = 0.011), and CD133 + KDR + ( P = 0.013) cells, whereas the association between defective CD34 + KDR + mobilization and DM was marginally significant ( P = 0.056) and blunted by age ( P = 0.024).

Patients with OCD also showed marginally significant larger Z -component coordinates of the connectivity maps for the right OFC ( P = .056).

Probably the only noteworthy outcomes were the marginally significant main effect of eligibility F (1, 15)=4.29, p =.056, η p 2 =.222, indicating that there was a trend towards fewer errors for 50% eligibility than for 100% (.077 vs. .093), and the two-way interaction between eligibility and target F (1, 15)=5.98, p =.027, η p 2 =.285, which indicates that this trend was pronounced only for present trials (50% eligibility .146; 100% eligibility .175).

In alertness after the stimulation, there was a marginally significant difference between the sessions [Χ 2 (2) = 5.77, p = 0.056].

The ANCOVA revealed a significant treatment effect for the DSES, F(1,20) = 12.31, p = .002, and a marginally significant effect for the intrinsic subscale of the Age Universal I-E scale, F(1,20) = 4.07, p = .056, at endpoint.

Marginally significant effects of Time × Group were noted for log WMFT–Time at T8 (F = 2.995, df = 2, p = 0.056) and T10 (F = 2.595, df = 3, p = 0.056), and the mean decreases over the entire course of the study in the EE and Exo groups were 0.149 (SE: 0.026) and 0.067 (SE: 0.026), respectively.

Normative arousal ratings indicated that positive (mean = 5.24) and neutral (mean = 4.31) images were significantly different from one another in arousal (b = 0.926, t 93 = 4.112, Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.377, 1.475]), while the difference between negative (mean = 4.85) and neutral images was marginally significant (b = 0.539, t 93 = 2.391, Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.056, 95% CI = [−0.011, 1.088]).

Psychopathy In the German male sample, overall emotion recognition ability showed a marginally significant interaction effect with psychopathy in predicting emotionally manipulative tactics [ B = 1.57, SE = 0.81, F (1,61) = 3.80, Δ R 2 = 0.04, p = 0.056, 95% CI (−0.04; 3.18)].

The interaction between group membership and online chat was marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 3.872, P = 0.056, η 2 = 0.092.

According to Tukey contrast test, the difference in patency rates between CS and AHB is marginally significant ( p = 0.056).