“marginally significant”

Significant difference in SBP change followed by age, BMI and Bonferroni correction was observed at the end of 2 weeks (genotype*gender, P = 0.028), and a marginally significant difference in MAP change at the end of 6 weeks was also observed (genotype*gender, P = 0.060).

However, this difference in recurrence frequency is marginally significant (chi‐square test, P = 0.06). 3.4.

Although marginally significant, countries where the contribution of NNTs to pollen allergenicity was higher tended to show higher scientific interest in NNTs ( R S = 0.58, P = 0.06, Table S10).

The musicality-by-hemisphere interaction was marginally significant [ T 2 (1, 31) = 0.133, p < 0.06].

However, overall connectivity between mFus and STS was less than mFus to other areas, significant in ITS/MOG ( t -test, t = 2.31, p = 0.04, one-tailed) and marginally significant in IOG ( t = 2.16, p = 0.06, one-tailed), but not significant in aIT ( t = 1.48, p = 0.11, one-tailed).

In addition, there was a marginally significant difference in SSRI/SNRI use at 34 gestational weeks ( p = 0.06; included group 112 no, 4 yes; excluded group 21 no, 3 yes).

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.

Lastly, a marginally significant correlation was found for PSR and CFF ( r = 0.30; p = 0.06).

However, the FE model showed a marginally significant negative association between the number of distinct medication types and FPG levels (−0.027, 95% CI: −0.055 to 0.001, p=0.060).

An ANOVA-type statistics (ATS) with within-subject factor Moment (interesting, non-interesting) and between-subject factor Person (PwD, MT) showed a significant interaction between Moment and Person [ATS(1) = 15.72, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant effect of Person [ATS(1) = 3.41, p = 0.06].

The difference in these linear trends was marginally significant ( P = .06).

Although the majority of all three conditions were in Cluster 1, a larger percentage of people from the gratitude experience (63.46%) and gratitude letter (78.79%) conditions were in Cluster 1 than from the near-miss relief condition (53.06%), yielding a marginally significant chi-square test, χ 2 (2) = 5.63, p = .06.

After the phylogenetically independent contrasts (PICs), the negative linear relationships were still significant in 2018 (R 2 = 0.34, p < 0.05) and marginally significant in 2019 (R 2 = 0.45, p = 0.06), which indicated that the phylogenetic effect did not change the trade-off relationships ( Table S1 ).

This model was marginally significant, F (3,75) = 2.54, r 2 adj = 0.06, p = 0.06, driven by a significant association with declarative memory, but not procedural memory, after controlling for site (see Table 3B for parameter estimates).

Group × bone × site interactions BR is the only variable that demonstrated a marginally significant ( p = .06) group × bone × site interaction, where the DMPN&CN's distal site BR on the fifth metatarsal averaged 4.5 (highest), resulting in the lowest resistance to fracture (Fig. 2 ).

For the HTQ, this correlation was marginally significant ( r =0.15, p =0.06).

This analysis yielded a marginally significant main effect of scalp location [ F (1, 23) = 3.82, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.14], showing that 8–13 Hz rhythm is tended to be suppressed stronger in central C3 and C4 sites; a significant interaction effect between chase type and scalp location [ F (1, 23) = 4.65, p = 0.04, η p 2 = 0.17].

Multiple regression analyses or multiple ordinal logistic regression analysis did not show significant interaction of ZnO-NPs exposure level and Nrf2 deletion for the above parameters, thus multiple regression model without the interaction was applied for them, although marginally significant interaction is noted for neutrophils ( p = 0.06) as it indicates different effect of ZnO-NP exposure level depending on the genotype.

MANCOVA revealed that there was a marginally significant main effect of victim’s views, Wilk’s λ = .94, F (2, 90) = 2.86, p = .06, partial ŋ 2 = .06.

ANOVA revealed a significant effect of pharmacological treatment (F (1,23) = 4.18, p < 0.05) and a marginally significant effect of stress (F (1,23) = 3.77, p = 0.06) at the 24 h time point.

3 a), there was a significant interaction between condition and genotype for 2 weeks (F(1,46) = 5.44, p = 0.02), while the effect in the 6-week group was marginally significant (F(1,42) = 4.829, p = 0.06).

A significant quadratic CS X phase interaction [ F (1,58) = 7.23, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.11 ] and a marginally significant quadratic group X phase interaction [ F (2,58) = 2.90, p = .06, η p 2 = 0.09 ] were also observed.

Especially, the difference between intra-group and inter-group Euclidian distance is marginally significant for normal group (P-value < 0.06) but significant for tumor group (P-value < 0.0083), and the peak for mean group methylation changes is centered around −0.1.

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 ).

This comparison was statistically significant for Equi versus DO-only (t = 2.76, one-tailed p < .001) and marginally significant for Equi versus PO-only (t = 1.6, one-tailed p = .06).