“marginally significant”

The miR-425 Cp value of the precipitation-based isolated urine EVs of healthy donors decreased at a marginally significant level ( p = 0.06) compared with that of the prostate cancer donors ( Figure 5 ).

Another cross-sectional study from the HABS has shown a marginally significant association between higher GDS score – driven by the anxiety-concentration subdomain – and lower glucose metabolism ( P = 0.06) [ 53 ].

Moreover, we found a marginally significant difference in cortisol levels between T1 and T3, t (152) = 2.84, p = 0.06, r = 0.22 with a larger effect for the humor group compared to the control one (2.0 and 0.38 respectively).

There was, however, a marginally significant ( p = 0.06) effect of boredom proneness on risky behavior, such that risky behavior was reduced with increasing levels of boredom proneness (i.e., the opposite effect relative to literature on boredom proneness and self-reported risk-taking) (Table 8 ).

2nd, t (19) = −4.25, p < 0.001, and marginally significant between 1st vs. 4th, t (19) = −1.93, p = 0.06; the differences in negative mood were significant between 1st vs. 2nd, t (19) = 3.04, p < 0.01, and between 1st vs. 4th, t (19) = 4.65, p < 0.001; the differences in neutral mood were not significant between 1st vs. 2nd, t (19) = 1.51, p > 0.1, and between 1st vs. 4th, t (19) = 1.32, p > 0.1.

( Table 1 ) The two groups were comparable in terms of mean NDI during pre-operative period ( p -value = 0.060; marginally significant), 3 months post-surgery ( p -value = 0.445) and 1 year post-surgery ( p -value = 0.465).

The same analysis for low NoF items (which are fewer in number, since fewer low NoF items were correctly recalled) revealed marginally significant results, F (2.46, 83.63) = 2.61, p = 0.06, MSE = 0.03.

Computational Modeling The two-way GLM on learning rate yielded a significant main effect of Time ( F (1, 44) = 21.76, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 0.33) and a marginally significant Time X Group interaction ( F (1, 44) = 3.58, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.075).

In addition, there was a significant main effect of reinforcement (F(1,41) = 10.50, P = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.20), such that trials paired with shock showed greater amygdala activity than trials not paired with shock, and a marginally significant main effect of condition (F(1,41) = 3.89, P = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.09), such that trials paired with social support figures showed greater amygdala activity than trials paired with strangers.

LGB-unrelated emotional task in HP and CD for the LGB group was considered, the GLM yielded a marginally significant Time x Task interaction for HP, F (1, 18) = 4.04, p = 0.06; η p 2 = 0.18.

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 ).

And the difference is higher in under 50 year-old participants (marginally significant; p-value=0.06)) rather over 50 year-old participants ( Figures 4 , 5 and 6 ,) Differences in the expression of miRs in two groups First,Ct of each sample was determined.The relative differences in expressions were calculatedby Δct method for miR.

However, no significant effect between the scan method and scan setting was found, although the interaction between tooth and scan method was significant ( p < 0.0001) and the interaction between scan method and examiner, marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

Post hoc paired-sample t -tests reported significant difference between Static and Moving conditions at the presentation duration of 1200 ms [ t (11) = −4.586, p = 0.002], though it failed to reach significance under 800 ms [ t (11) = 0.561, p > 0.999], and with marginally significant difference under 1000 ms [ t (11) = −2.717, p = 0.060] presentation duration (all Bonferroni-corrected).

After controlling for the tibia size, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between the infection status and the banana genotype on forewing area (GLM: LR = 3.33, p = 0.06).

Calculation of Pearson correlations indicated that changes in the factor scores for conviction were not significantly correlated with baseline values of the JTC factor, r = .03 ( p = .65) and r = .04 ( p = .56), for the changes between 0 and 3 months and between 0 and 12 months, respectively, or the belief flexibility factor for the change between 0 and 12 months, r = −0.04 ( p = .52), though the correlation between baseline belief flexibility and change in conviction in the first three months was marginally significant, r = −0.13 ( p < .06).

SHAPS The repeated-measures ANCOVA for SHAPS yielded a marginally significant within-subjects main effect of time ( F 1,789 = 3.54, P = .06, η p 2 = .004), and a significant time*user-group interaction effect ( F 1,789 = 6.49, P = .01, η p 2 = .008) in the direction of greater increase in scores from before to after lockdown for controls compared with users.

But we observed no effect of phenotype ( F = 1.05, R 2 = 0.01, p = 0.20), and only a marginally significant interaction between environment and phenotype ( F = 1.10, R 2 = 0.01, p = 0.06).

There was a marginally significant validity/practice hours interaction, F (1,18) = 3.95, P = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.18, so that RT differences between valid and invalid trials decreased as hours of practice increased.

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).

Compared to patients not reporting ACE and anxiety comorbidity, the ACE + Anxiety group had elevated B cell, T cell, and macrophage infiltration, although this was marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

Living alone at baseline is considered a risk factor for a larger number of falls at the end of the study ( p = 0.004), and age is marginally significant at 6 months ( p = 0.060). 4.

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

At the late branch we can report significant benefits ( p = .0247) and marginally significant costs ( p = .060).

This new set of analyses identified marginally significant differences ( t = 2.30, df = 5.76, two-sided p = 0.06) for PTSD between cannabis use and tobacco use, with the former having higher ORs.