“marginally significant”

6A ) and running exerted a marginally significant inhibitory effect ( P = 0.06 for main effect of running), but there was no significant interaction effect ( P = 0.86).

Deer groups tended (marginally significant, with P = 0.06) to diffuse at a faster rate when they travelled in areas composed of a smaller percentage of potential foraging patches.

In the SI condition, O showed no significant arm motion in the pre-MI period ( χ 2 (1) = 0.93, p = 0.33), and Y showed marginally significant ( χ 2 (1) = 3.54, p = 0.06) forward motion.

GERD was the only predictor of IPF, while ulcers and biomass exposure were the marginally significant factors (p=0.06) shown in Table-III .

A marginally significant increase in the frequency of the DQB1 * 0201 ( P = 0.06) and DQB1 * 0603 ( P = 0.10) alleles was found among subjects who demonstrated high IL-4 levels to MV-P.

There was also a marginally significant interaction effect between negative body image and weight status ( β = 0.67, p = 0.06) ( Table 2 ).

A one-way MANOVA showed a marginally significant main effect of the experimental conditions on the PAD scale: F (3, 99) = 2.58, p = .06, Wilk’s Λ = 0.93, partial η 2 = .07, d = 0.56; with notably less positive affect and more arousal.

The interaction between company type and target audience was marginally significant for number of facings, F (2, 202) = 2.9, p = 0.06.

The main effect of Hemisphere was marginally significant ( F (1,17) = 4.20; p = 0.06; η 2 p = 0.20) The interaction between Speech Type and Hemisphere was not significant ( p > 0.47).

The results showed a marginally significant interaction effect between gender and IJS1 group, F(1, 178) = 3.592, p = .060, η 2 = .020.

The SI values for the non-rewarded cue were also elevated in preterm mice (Term NR =0.11 ± 0.19, Preterm NR = 0.2 ± 0.07), but the differences in their distribution between term and preterm mice were marginally significant (K-S test, D = 0.41, p = 0.06), likely due to the low number of significantly modulated neurons (Term=16 and Preterm=23).

The inverse trend across categories of childhood body fatness was somewhat more apparent among those who were heavy than among those who were lean at age 18 years, and the test for interaction was marginally significant (χ 2 1 = 3.68; P = 0.06), although the multivariate RRs for the most overweight compared with the most lean in childhood were very similar in both categories of BMI at age 18 years (RR = 0.42 among those with BMI <22 kg/m 2 at age 18 years, P for trend = 0.08; and RR = 0.49 among those with BMI ≥ 22 kg/m 2 at age 18 years, P for trend = 0.001).

When we remove White 20, one of two birds with the fewest numbers ( N = 3) of HVC X recorded, all but one of the remaining birds considered individually had P values < 0.001 (16 birds), with the remaining one marginally significant ( P < 0.06), and with the group data yielding values of R = –0.75 and P < 10 −4 .

Chital spatial density was marginally significant (P = 0.06) with a very weak relation with lion density, while there was no relationship with spatial density of sambar, distance to water sources, or vegetation density ( S5 Fig ).

While the presence of adenoma or carcinoma did not seem to affect the correlation between microbial PCo1 and metabolite PC1, females showed a higher microbial PCo1-metabolite PC1 correlation than males (Spearman’s ρ = −0.772, P < 10 −19 for females; Spearman’s ρ = −0.643, P < 10 −17 for males; difference was marginally significant when tested using Fisher r -to- z transformation, P < 0.06).

RQ2: Changes in Participants’ Sedentary Behavior Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed a marginally significant decrease in daily sedentary time in group A ( Z =−11.50; P =.06) and no significant difference in daily sedentary time in group B ( Z =2.50; P =.59).

In particular, the SNP pair of rs11892646 and rs56219526 was marginally significant after multiple testing adjustments ( p ‐value = .06).

The test for heterogeneity was marginally significant ( I 2 = 33%; τ 2 = 0.0361, p = 0.06) and we opted for the more conservative approach of proceeding with a random effects model, showing a significant ( z = 7.14, p < 0.0001) positive Cohen’s d 0.58, 95% CI ranged from 0.42 to 0.74.

The result was also marginally significant (p=0.06).

These difference was significant ( p = 0.008) or marginally significant ( p = 0.06) in the experiment 2, which meant the interference of inter-character spaces and non-word spaces was appeared on the familiar format.

Due to the low number of cases, group differences were marginally significant in 2004 (χ 2 (2) = 3.53; p = 0.06) and were significant in 2018 (χ 2 (2) = 8.44; p<0.01).

The results showed that there was a marginally significant interaction between regulatory focus and emotion in regard to the behavior of water-saving information dissemination ( F (1,56) = 3.62, p = 0.06)).

Furthermore, there was significantly higher vegetation cover at collapsed burrows than at fresh burrows in the semi-arid savannah site (Chi 2 = 7.71, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant difference between the burrow age classes in the mesic grassland (Chi 2 = 5.62, p = 0.06, Supplementary Table S.1 ).

Being “not at all” anxious was a marginally significant predictor of weight loss (B = 0.83, p = 0.06).

The Johnson & Johnson assay showed a marginally significant association (ρ = 0.20, p = 0.06).