“marginally significant”

When comparing the TRP+ after four consecutive treatment days with the TRP+ condition of 1 day administration that was taken earlier in the same animals (experiment 2), an interaction effect was not found for TRP [Time × Treatment: F (2,8) = 3.52, NS ], but this interaction was marginally significant for the TRP/ΣLNAA ratio [ F (2,8) = 4.23, P = 0.056].

Differences in g s were marginally significant among species ( F 3,19 = 3.11, P = 0.056, Fig. 2 B), with L. clavatum and to a lesser extent S. annotinum exhibiting higher g s .

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

LBD) demonstrated a significant main effect for picture position [ F (14,280) = 206.97, p < .001, η 2 = .91] and a marginally significant main effect for participant group: RBD patients tended to have a higher proportion of first object reports compared to LBD patients [ F (1,20) = 4.12, p = .056, η 2 = .17].

First, the sex difference in achieving clinical remission during follow-up was statistically significant only in Southern Europe (odds ratio [OR] of female vs male =1.45, P <0.001) and North Africa and the Middle East (OR =1.36, P =0.046) at a significance level of 0.05, and marginally significant at a significance level of 0.1 in Northern Europe (OR =1.15, P =0.056), Central and Eastern Europe (OR =1.19, P =0.057), and also in East Asia (OR =1.30, P =0.077).

With regard to brand recall , the mediation analyses showed a marginally significant direct effect of the disclosure on brand recall ( b = 1.72, SE = 0.90, p = 0.056).

The difference in birth weight was marginally significant between women with and without FHD who underwent OGTT and provided FHD data (3139 ± 353 vs. 3235 ± 367 g, p = 0.056).

Subgroup analysis showed that Ad-CMV-hsFlt-1-e15a led to a significant increase in albumin/creatinine ratio on PPD8 (3-fold, p = 0.003); Ad-RGD-CMV-hsFlt-1-e15a led to significant increase in albumin/creatinine ratio on GD18 (2.4-fold, p = 0.04); while Ad-RGD-CYP-hsFlt-1-e15a led to a marginally significant increase in albumin/creatinine ratio on GD18 (2.4-fold, p = 0.056) and a significant increase on PPD8 (1.8-fold, p = 0.04) ( Figure 7B ).

For those who scored low on the PCL-C, there was a positive correlation between methylation and hippocampal volume, which was marginally significant for the Pearson’s test ( r = 0.36, p = .056) and significant for the Spearman test ( ρ = .45, p = .016).

Among participants with PTSD, the weekday and weekend differences were attenuated but remained significant or marginally significant when random slopes for weekday and weekend differences were included, (intrusion: p = .056, avoidance: p = .031, negative cognitions: p = .012, and hyperarousal: p <.001). 4 Discussion Using an EMA approach, this study examined the day of the week variation in each of the DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters (intrusion, avoidance, negative cognitions/mood, and hyperarousal) across 15 days in individuals with and without PTSD.

There was a marginally significant difference between sides for aerosol cages ( F 1,11.5 = 4.5, P = 0.056).

The main effect of orientation was marginally significant [ F (1, 30) = 3.95, P = .056], showing faster RTs for upright hand postures (635 ms) compared with inverted hand postures (645 ms).

Marginally significant was the interaction Stimulus Type × Self Relevance × Electrode, F 8,192 = 2.42, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.09, because in some conditions power tended to be largest at AFz.

Similar to post-test prediction results, we discovered that none of the incoming parameters were significant predictors of NLG, except for marginally significant DPA feature ( B = 0.244, t = 1.946, p = 0.056).

Moreover, parental psychological control showed a marginally significant effect on the intercept of anxiety symptoms (β intercept = .21, p = .056), with an effect size comparable to depression, suggesting that adolescents that experience higher levels of parental psychological control also reported higher levels of anxiety.

This finding was marginally significant ( p = 0.056), with locations in the lowest category of annual rainfall having an odds ratio (OR) of 2.02 (95% confidence interval: 0.97–4.19).

The difference between the Collective/Random ( M = 2062 ms, SD = 253 ms) and Individual/Random ( M = 1919 ms, SD = 324 ms) conditions was marginally significant and in the expected direction, t (61) = 1.95, p = 0.056, d = 0.48, with a meaningful effect size.

We also found a marginally significant trend suggesting that gardens surrounded by more urban land cover supported a higher richness of rare bee species ( p = 0.056; Table 3 ).

In addition, RST appears to increase immobility during the post stress period, an effect that was marginally significant (p = 0.056).

Result We first conducted a 2 (priming type: individualism, collectivism) ×4 (social distance of close target: individual in the same country, individual in the same town, friend, family member) × 2 (individuals toward whom empathy is extended: socially distant target only, socially close target only) × 2 (contribution level: empathic, prosocial act) repeated ANOVA and found a marginally significant main effect of priming, F (1, 199) = 3.70, p = 0.056, ηp 2 = 0.02, a post hoc test found that participants’ overall moral judgments were significantly higher in the collectivist priming condition ( M = 6.19, SD = 0.12) than in the individualist priming condition ( M = 5.87, SD = 0.11), in which collectivism had higher overall moral ratings than individualism for different types of acts.

After adjusting for age, sex, the association remained marginally significant (adjusted OR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00–1.10; p = 0.056) ( Table 3 ).

Of those who had not received depot neuroleptics, it was offered to 20% of the psychosis and 7% of the non-psychosis patients which was marginally significant (χ 2 (2)=5.75, P=0.056).

The overall model was marginally significant in accounting for 7.8% of the variance ( F, 3, 93 = 2.61, p = 0.056, multiple R 2 = 0.08).

3 D ) and only a marginally significant correlation with SRL (R2 = 0.049, P = 0.056, Fig. 3 E ).

The ANOVA results showed that the main effect of the conflict magnitude was significant [ F (1,25) = 17.318, P < 0.001, η 2 = 0.409], the main effect of confidence was marginally significant [ F (1,25) = 4.008, P = 0.056, η 2 = 0.138], but the main effect of electrode was not significant [ F (5,125) = 1.576, P = 0.172, η 2 = 0.059].