“marginally significant”

Further analysis of the three way interaction revealed that the interaction between Type of deck and Laterality showed significant differences in different regions, i.e., the interaction was significant in the frontal ( p = 0.007) and central ( p = 0.009) regions and marginally significant in the parietal region ( p = 0.060).

Furthermore, the number of treatment lines after resistance to DTT ( p < 0.001) and ECOG PS ( p = 0.060, marginally significant) were independent prognostic factors for pOS ( Supplemental Table S3B ).

As a result, there was a significant correlation between the intervention group and ΔDASS-anxiety ( r = 0.35, p < 0.05); ΔDASS-depression and ΔDASS-stress showed a marginally significant correlation ( r = 0.29, p = 0.06; r = 0.26, p = 0.09, respectively).

Effectiveness We found marginally significant differences in BP screening for video (15/71, 21%), phone (16/92, 17%), and in-person (39/69, 57%) visits (adjusted P =.06), with significantly lower odds for video (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.50; P <.001) and phone (AOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.30; P <.001) versus in-person visits.

However, when measuring differences in the CHO intake between genders in each climbing level, marginally significant differences were found in the intermediate ( p = 0.06; Z = −1.88) and the elite ( p = 0.06; Z = −1.88) group, with no significance in the advanced group ( p = 0.13; Z = −1.50) The dietary intake of macro and micronutrients of male and female climbers on different climbing levels is presented in Table 4 .

The overall effect of fuel-treatment was marginally significant ( F 2,30.77 = 3.09, P = 0.060; see Table S5 ).

However, the hypothesized negative association between relatedness need satisfaction and social media addiction was marginally significant ( p = 0.06), and Hypothesis 5 was not supported.

Moreover, the paired t -test showed that the better performance of Pcv over CSP seemed to be marginally significant ( p -value = 0.06), and the improvement offered by Pfix was shown to be statistically significant, as p -value is less than 0.001.

From 0.5 till 3.5 minutes after extra long pre-exposure (4.3 minutes) the predominance of the alternative percept was significantly larger than the baseline measure (time-bins 2-5 and 7: all t>3.0, all p<0.05; time-bin 6 was marginally significant: t = 2.2, p = 0.06).

A significant difference in hydration increment was noted between both groups at Week 4, with the CPM‐HA20G treated side demonstrating an average hydration increment of 12.3% (95% CI 1.3–23.2, p = 0.029); there was also a marginally significant difference between the two groups at week 32, where the average hydration increment of the CPM‐HA20G treated side was 10.7% (95% CI −0.4 to 21.8, p = 0.06) higher than that of the CPM‐HA20 treated side, as shown in Figure 4 . 3.4.

For instance, BY carries a marginally significant excess of allelic singletons that confer resistance relative to the other three strains (Fisher's exact test, Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.06; Figure 3C ; Table 1 ).

Compared with patients with > 2.00 g/dL of serum albumin concentration, those with 1.01–1.50 g/dL had a significantly lower cumulative probability of remission (P = 0.046) and those with ≤ 1.00 g/dL had lower cumulative probability of remission at marginally significant level (P = 0.060).

Analysis of confidence rating response time yielded a marginally significant main effect of level ( F (2, 16)=4.3870, ε = 0.59, p<.06, η2 =0.35), which was caused by faster high-confidence (734 ms, sd =103) than low-confidence (1100 ms, sd =150) responses ( p <.05).

Behavioral Results Accuracy The repeated ANOVA results revealed a marginally significant congruency effect ( F = 3.64, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.09), such that the participants responded more accurately in the congruent trials ( M = 0.988, SD = 0.003) than in the incongruent trials ( M = 0.985, SD = 0.003).

There was also a marginally significant variation in copper intake ( P =0.06).

Moreover, a marginally significant effect of the rs1799889 variant on TG (SMD = –0.09, 95% CI = –0.17 to 0.00, P = 0.06) and HDL-C [SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = –0.02 to 0.31, P = 0.09; Figure 5 ] levels was observed in the Asian population ( Table 1 ).

Furthermore the Face x Sentence x Age interaction was marginally significant ( p = .06, cf. the blue bars in Fig. 6 ): In the negative sentence conditions, the negative (vs. positive) face did not appear to affect accuracy in the young group ( M = .88, SE = 0.03 vs.

In unadjusted models, triglycerides, VLDL, sICAM-1, and sVCAM-1 levels were significant predictors of plasma ADMA concentration, and age was a marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.06) ( Table 2 ).

No significant differences were observed for all remaining TMS time windows (all p > .15) but there was a marginally significant effect at +400 ms ( t (13) = 2.057, p = .060).

Next, although thiamine supplementation levels accounted for marginally significant growth in infants’ receptive language development across the entire 2‐ through 52‐week period ( F (1,329) = 3.18 , P = 0.06), the time‐by‐thiamine dosage level interaction accounted for significant receptive language development during this period ( F (3,726) = 2.86 , P = 0.04).

There was a marginally significant effect of irradiation × treatment interaction on immobility (F (1,22) = 3.81, P = 0.06).

At the uncorrected level, the detectability difference was also significant in the time window between saccade cue and saccade onset ( p = 0.027), and marginally significant during saccade ( p = 0.060).

Additionally, a trend towards lower birth weight was noted in the FAM group, although the disparity was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

The effect was marginally significant [ F (1, 53) = 2.15, p = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.47].

This difference is significant (Fisher Exact test P < 0.05) for all but one thresholds where it was marginally significant with P = 0.06.