“marginally significant”

Although these associations were partly driven by the increased epithelial fraction, the associations with EAC-status remained marginally significant under a linear regression model where we adjusted for the epithelial content (Cohort-1: t = 1.9, P = 0.06; Cohort-2: t = 1.8, P = 0.09).

alcohol consumption alcoholic liver cirrhosis sarcopenia Regarding the proportion of patients with ALC and non‐ALC in each age group among patients with sarcopenia, there was a marginally significant trend among the three groups ( P = 0.060; Fig. 2a ).

In line with the Experiment 1, the positive correlation between valence and accuracy was marginally significant (ρ valence, accuracy · arousal = 0.19, p = 0.06) when the effect of arousal was controlled.

T-tests comparing the mean amount provided by partners, indicated that AGYW tend to receive more from transactional partners (M = $15.85, SD $20.05), compared to non-transactional partners (M = $13.50, SD $21.19), though findings were marginally significant (p = 0.06).

Although the direct correlation between vascular lesions and end-stage renal disease is not entirely clear, a marginally significant association (log-rank test, p = 0.06) was observed with arterial wall thickening.

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

While heterologous hybridization performed well for the two Tanganyikan cichlids and the closely related tilapia, a marginally significant decrease in the number of hybridized spots was seen for the more distantly related species (Kruskal-Wallis test: χ 2 = 13.35; p = 0.06).

A marginally significant difference was found between SS-nL patients and HCs (44.5% vs. 38.7%, OR [95% CI]: 1.27 [0.99–1.60], p = 0.06).

[ 18 ] dataset were marginally significant ( P = .060 and .096, respectively; Table 1 ).

Although quite less than these studies, our model predicted only 10.7% of total intention, including the BFSN, showed the likely trait (marginally significant; p = .060; Table 3 ), so we included it in the model with further adjustment, and it was significant (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.01–2.71; Table 4 ).

This finding was marginally significant (p = 0.060, two-tailed, n = 34).

It was marginally significant at the medium price ( p = 0.06, not represented in Fig. 2 ).

After controlling for pre-test scores, we observed a marginally significant main effect for behavioral engagement, F (1,193) = 3.48, p =.06, η 2 = .01, 95% CI [.00, .05].

The interaction between emotion and location was still marginally significant, F (2,13) = 3.141, p = 0.060.

1D) and led to a marginally significant increase in gait speed (MD = 0.12 m/s, 95 % CI: −0.00, 0.24, I 2 = 53 %, p = 0.060, Appendix Fig. 2C), but did not affect the SMI, lean mass, body fat, BMI, handgrip strength, gait speed, or QoL (Appendix Figs. 1 and 2).

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.

Cognition SST The effect of LDX on stop-signal commission errors was marginally significant: LDX reduced commission errors ( t (20) = −1.97, p = 0.06, d = 0.43), but there was no effect on omission errors ( t (19) = 0.67, p = 0.51, d = 0.15), no-signal RT ( t (20) = 1.59, p = 0.13, d = 0.35), SSD ( t (20) = 1.20 p = 0.24, d = 0.26), nor SSRT ( t (19) = −0.15, p = 0.88, d = −0.03) (Table 1 ).

We also observed significant difference between early exposure and controllable ( z = −2.13, p = 0.017) and a marginally significant difference between late exposure and uncontrollable ( z = 1.55, p = 0.06) phases.

This effect was marginally significant in the left amygdala ( t = 1.6, P = 0.06, d = 0.35).

Despite no significant difference in system segregation between decliners and non-decliners ( Figure 4B ), the final MMSE scores in decliners displayed a strong but marginally significant association with system segregation for all canonical networks and DMN (rho = 0.59, p = 0.06; rho = 0.57, p = 0.07) and a significant association with system segregation for SMN (rho = 0.67, p = 0.03) ( Figure 5B ).

2a , Table 1a ) revealed a significant main effect of validity ( F (1, 64) = 100.85, p < 0.001), with faster responses under valid than invalid conditions, and a marginally significant effect of target ( F (1, 64) = 8.18, p = 0.06), with faster responses under the voice than the tone condition; however, there was no significant effect involving group ( F (1, 64) = 0.42, p = 0.52).

In the unfiltered condition, typically developing children showed shorter reaction times in global decision than in local decision [marginally significant, F(1,56) = 3.59, P = 0.06], while there was no significant difference between global and local decision for the other two groups (M-D normal DD: [F(1,56) = 0.71, P = 0.40]; M-D impaired DD: [F(1,56) = 0.87, P = 0.36]).

There was also a marginally significant difference (multivariable-adjusted p = 0.06) in EQ-5D VAS scores between older and younger adults ( Table 2 ).

Men caring for a family member and women caring for non-kin were disproportionately likely to be social isolates, but the difference was obviated for men caring for non-kin, as indicated by a marginally significant interaction effect ( p < .06) between the indicators for caregiver gender and non-kin care-relationship.

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