“marginally significant”

Although quite less than these studies, our model predicted only 10.7% of total intention, including the BFSN, showed the likely trait (marginally significant; p = .060; Table 3 ), so we included it in the model with further adjustment, and it was significant (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.01–2.71; Table 4 ).

Furthermore, mental health illness, although marginally significant ( p = 0.06), played a noteworthy role in predicting mortality.

When comparing participants who had follow-up data to those who did not, baseline REAL-DQ scores on three subscales demonstrated marginally significant differences (Healthy Habits, p = .06; Managing Diabetes, p = .04; Emotions and Well-being, p = .06) with participants who scored higher at baseline being less likely to complete follow-up measures.

The results revealed a marginally significant main effect of modality order, F (1, 16) = 4.16, p = .06, η p 2 = .21.

Also the response to left unilateral trials showed a marginally significant improvement in both the immediate and delayed post-hypnotic testing sessions (100% correct for both sessions vs. 9/12 correct before hypnosis, CHI2 (1) = 3.4, p = 0.06).

Step 3 examining motivators for weight loss was marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

Simple effect analysis showed that significant or marginally significant differences between the valid and invalid locations occurred at electrodes P4, P7, and P8 (P4v-i = − 0.507 μV, p = 0.06; P7v-i = − 0.506 μV, p < 0.01; P8v-i = − 0.538 μV, p < 0.05), and a significant maximum difference between the valid and invalid locations was found in the P8 electrode (− 0.538 μV).

Although the direct correlation between vascular lesions and end-stage renal disease is not entirely clear, a marginally significant association (log-rank test, p = 0.06) was observed with arterial wall thickening.

A marginally significant main effect of Presentation [ F (1,29) = 3.77, p = 0.06] but no significant effects of Group or Group × Presentation emerged for RMSSD.

This item type effect was qualified by an interaction with culture, F (1.42, 196.73) = 3.45, MSE = 0.06, p < .05, η 2 = 0.02; and a marginally significant 3-way interaction, F (1.42, 196.73) = 3.24, MSE = 0.06, p = .06, η 2 = 0.02.

A marginally significant effect of dose was found [ F (1,85) = 3.57, p = 0.06]. 4.

In invasive populations, inbreeding depression was not significant in exclusions ( p = 1.00), but became marginally significant in inclusions ( p = 0.06). 3.3 Population variation in I × E interaction effects on fitness‐related traits The magnitude of inbreeding depression (δ) exhibited pronounced variation across populations and traits (Figure 3 ).

The differences seemed fairly small and did not reach statistical significance, excepting a marginally significant difference in the estimated relations of social and emotional intelligences with visuospatial processing ( r = 0.29 versus r = 0.17, respectively, p = 0.06).

In the present study, there was some marginally significant ( p = 0.06) standardized MARC effect, which may hint towards small markedness influence in the German sample.

We detected 14 (37.8%) lincRNA/mRNA pairs with the H2H type, which shows marginally significant over-representation ( p = 0.06, one-sided Binomial test) relative to the global distribution.

friend lower rating) on the N400 amplitude revealed a marginally significant main effect of direction, with the friend higher condition eliciting a more negative N400 than the friend lower condition, F (1, 32) = 3.90, P = 0.06 ( Fig. 2B ).

Subsequently, we found positive correlations between ICD and apoptosis (PCC = 0.55, β = 0.43, p = 0.03), ICD and necroptosis (PCC = 0.74, β = 0.78, p = 0.002), and apoptosis and necroptosis (PCC = 0.83, β = 1.11, p = 0.0001) within the ARVC myocardium, whereas the correlation between ICD and pyroptosis was marginally significant (PCC = 0.49, β = 0.86, p = 0.06) ( Supplementary Figure S2 ). 3.3.

2a , Table 1a ) revealed a significant main effect of validity ( F (1, 64) = 100.85, p < 0.001), with faster responses under valid than invalid conditions, and a marginally significant effect of target ( F (1, 64) = 8.18, p = 0.06), with faster responses under the voice than the tone condition; however, there was no significant effect involving group ( F (1, 64) = 0.42, p = 0.52).

Linear regression of the executive index did detect a marginally significant group difference ( R 2 =0.10, F (7,120)=1.98, P =0.06).

Subsequent per-group analyses only yielded a marginally significant main effect of Condition for the L1 group's total viewing times [ F 1(2, 64) = 2.98, p = 0.06; F 2(2, 34) = 2.5, p = 0.09], and a marginal one in the by-items analysis for the L2 group's rereading times [ F 1(2, 66) = 2.46, p = 0.09; F 2(2, 34) = 0.85, p = 0.43], however.

For the participants in the fluent group, the mean rating ( M = 2.52, SD = 1.60) was significantly lower than the neutral 4, t (26) = 4.81, p < .001, d = 1.89; however, the difference between the mean rating ( M = 3.22, SD = 2.08) and the rating of 4 in the nonfluent group was marginally significant, t (26) = 1.94, p = .06, d = 0.38, indicating that in the fluent group, participants tended to believe blocking was more effective.

Furthermore, significant changes in rectified EMG were present at 2 min ( p = .02) and marginally significant changes were observed at 10 min ( p = .06) following tsDCS, but not following sham ( p ‐value range = 0.50–0.91) (Figure 2c ).

2012 ) do not explain the variation in crossover rate we observed; at best, (CA) ≥ 5 is marginally significant ( P = 0.06, Table 2 ).

For patients with brain metastasis at baseline, the combination therapy achieved a significant better PFS than the monotherapy (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.39–0.90; p = 0.01), and a better OS with the difference marginally significant (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.46–1.02; p = 0.06).

In a multivariate model, percentage change in tumor size at the first assessment was a marginally significant positive predictor for PFS ( P = .06).