“marginally significant”

Importantly, a marginally significant training main effect (F(1,36) = 3.77, p = 0.06) was revealed by a Group (complete trainee/control) by Threshold (5/10/15/20%) ANOVA for the difference in average HRC size ( Threshold as the repeated measure).

and retained important independent variables such as directly asking patients about DA etc. DA screening practice was significantly associated with gender (AOR = 0.46, P = 0.037), place of work (AOR = 3.68, P = 0.039), and interest in continuing education courses (AOR = 3.21, P = 0.015) whereas directly asking patient about DA was a marginally significant factor in the study (AOR = 2.20, P = 0.060) ( Table 3 ).

In addition, there was a marginally significant increase in anxiety from pre- to post-testing, F = 3.46, p = 0.06, partial eta squared = 0.02.

The difference between the effect of healthiness scores on sustainability ratings and the effect of sustainability scores on healthiness ratings (H 3 ) The z‐test testing whether there is a difference between the effect of healthiness scores on sustainability ratings ( r = .19) and the effect of sustainability scores on healthiness ratings ( r = .11) was marginally significant (z = 1.55, p = .06).

frontalis ) and eastern Palearctic (with break at Lena River) grouped together and the western Palearctic as a second group; although it was marginally significant (Φ CT = 0.135, p = 0.06, Table 3 ).

The RTs between neutral-distractor and no-distractor showed a marginally significant difference ( t = 2.19, p = .06, all p value corrected by Holm method).This results suggested that participants’ attention was captured more in reward-distractor than in loss-distractor and neutral-distractor condition, see Fig. 2A .

A marginally significant difference was identified between these two correlation coefficients ( z = 1.88 , p = 0.06 ). 4 Discussion In the present study, direct gaze had a significant overall impact on the behavioral data in both groups.

The facilitation effect at the 2000 ms SOA for incongruent trials was marginally significant [ t (9) = 2.14, p =.06, r = 0.58].

Authoritative parenting practice showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.06) by adolescent sex, with a higher authoritative score among parents of boys.

However, in post hoc comparisons, we did observe a marginally significant increase in sensitivity to healthiness in the HEALTH condition compared to the DECREASE condition ( t 49 = 1.94, P = 0.06, see Figure 2B , right).

However, the ANOVA for sleep interval duration revealed a marginally significant main effect of age (F(1, 27)=3.86, p =0.06) and a significant main effect of vDNMP (F(2, 27)=2.32, p =0.03), in which the MMP dogs had the longest sleep interval, whereas the oldest dogs (11–16 yrs) had the shortest sleep interval.

Parent specific effects were not found in our sample, a GLM including parent (father/mother) as additional factor did not show a significant effect for parent , ( F (1,45) = 0.099, p = 0.75), while the main effect group and the interaction effect group × parenting style remained unchanged; the marginally significant main effect parenting style was not significant anymore, p = 0.06, due to model complexity.

The first five RDA axes were significant (ANOVA, p < 0.05), and RDA6 was marginally significant (ANOVA, p = 0.06) so we retained the first six axes (Figures 3a and S5 ), which cumulatively captured 88% of the total explained genetic variance (Table S5 ).

In fact, symbiotic performance was poor overall, with only strain ACRS20 having significantly higher shoot dry weight than the negative control (Dunnett’s test, p < 0.05) and performance of ACRS4b and ACRS7b being marginally significant ( p < 0.06).

The effect of total wayfinding experience on route strategy remained significant when controlling only for participant sex, B = −0.179, p = .042 or trait anxiety, B = −0.206, p = .018, but became marginally significant when controlling for both participant sex and trait anxiety, B = −0.165, p = .060.

The percentage tended to be higher in male than in female participants (marginally significant, p=0.06).

Nonetheless, in the case of word congruent trials, when the SOA was 0 ms, the main effect of response hand was not significant, F (1,19) = 1.79, p > 0.05; the main effect of magnitude was not significant, F (1,19) = 0.71, p > 0.05; but the interaction between response hand and magnitude was marginally significant, F (1,19) = 4.04, p < 0.06, η p 2 = 0.18.

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant interaction effect of group x phobia relevance, F (1,106) = 3.67, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.03.

SES differences were less pronounced upon stratification, with trend tests significant only among females ( p = 0.004), and marginally significant among Hispanic males ( p = 0.06).

Two markers from the dietary recall were significant predictors: the lagged number of kilocalories (marginally significant at p = 0.06) and the contemporaneous percent calories from carbohydrates.

Differences between families with 1 child with a disability and 3 or more children with a disability (mean, −1.1 ± 1.1; median, −1.2) were marginally significant (Dunn statistic = 1.86, P = .06).

-3.50±0.72%; P = 0.06). We observed a marginally significant decrease in SDBP (systolic to diastolic blood pressure) between the two groups after adjustment for waist circumference ( P = 0.06).

Finally, univariate ANOVA analyzes revealed significant gender differences for MCS (F(1,1124) = 8,25; p < 0.01,) and marginally significant for PCS (F(1,1124) = 3,42; p = 0.06) with males obtaining higher scores than females in both cases.

effect of the amplitude and stimulus type was not significant ( F (1,22) = 0.84, p = 0.54); the interaction effect of the amplitude and stimulus type and professional identity was not significant ( F (1,22) = 0.76, p = 0.59); and the interaction effect of stimulus type and professional identity was marginally significant ( F (1,22) = 3.94, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.15).

Although there was a marginally significant difference in the mean percentage of time spent at home in the last month of life (48% and 41%, respectively; P value = 0.06), this was lost (P value = 0.15) when adjusted for other predictive factors (gender and living with spouse).