Marginally significant differences were found between Staphylococcus aureus IMI in pregnant heifers compared to cows in their second and later lactations (p = 0.06, p = 0.05, respectively) but no significant differences between heifers and cows in their first lactation.
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
The results departed remarkably from the negative correlation of −0.50 reported for the inhibitory task: the correlation was positive and marginally significant ( N = 17, r = 0.47, p = 0.06).
The main effect of color congruency was marginally significant [ F (1, 23) = 3.89, η p 2 = 0.15, p = 0.06].
A marginally significant effect of CONDITION was observed [ F (1, 32) = 3.9, P = 0.06], but no effect of GROUP [ F (1, 32) = 1.8, P = 0.19] and no interactions between these factors (all P ≥ 0.09) were noted.
Subsequent per-group analyses only yielded a marginally significant main effect of Condition for the L1 group's total viewing times [ F 1(2, 64) = 2.98, p = 0.06; F 2(2, 34) = 2.5, p = 0.09], and a marginal one in the by-items analysis for the L2 group's rereading times [ F 1(2, 66) = 2.46, p = 0.09; F 2(2, 34) = 0.85, p = 0.43], however.
However, there was a marginally significant interaction between TF, amount, electrode, and impulsivity ( F 2.4,38.4 = 2.92, P = 0.06, η 2 = 0.15).
The three-way interaction of prime duration × prime congruence × group was marginally significant, F (1, 48) = 3.6, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.97.
Marginally significant differences were found between the female and male groups at baseline for inter- and intra-hemispheric gamma coherence [ t (35) = 1.97, 1.96, p = 0.06], but not for theta or alpha.
There was a significant interaction between sentence-effect compatibility and action-effect relation [ F (1, 38) = 8.04, MSE = 38.89, p = 0.007] and a marginally significant interaction between sentence-effect compatibility and SOA [ F (4, 152) = 2.67, MSE = 50.92, p = 0.06].
RESULTS Lp-PLA2 levels were higher among American men (301.7 ±82.6 ng/mL) than Japanese men (275.9 ±104.7 ng/mL); the difference was marginally significant (p=0.060, Table 1 ).
A marginally significant difference was seen for TD between self and close other ( M = 850, SE = 62.18), t (62) = 1.91, p = 0.06, d = 0.24, but not significant between TD for close and distant others [ t (62) = 1.48, p = 0.143, d = 0.24] (Figure 3 ).
In this case, there was a main effect of condition [ F (1,55) = 4.8, p < 0.05] and a marginally significant interaction with group [ F (1,55) = 3.8, p < 0.06].
A post-hoc t -test comparing the two groups at follow-up was marginally significant, t (38) = 1.94, p = .06.
A marginally significant main effect of tDCS condition was found on overall RTs at recognition ( F (2,20) = 3.2, P = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.24), but not of stimulus familiarity ( F (1,10) = 1.5, P >0.1, η p 2 = 0.13) or interaction ( F (2,20) = 0.64, P >0.1, η p 2 = 0.06).
Of the beetles fed on dung, only time seemed to be marginally significant ( F = 3.32; P = 0.06).
A formal test for effect modification by diabetes status of the association between SDNN and AS measures was marginally significant for central AS (PWV-trunk, P = 0.06; Fig. 1 B ).
The results for BA show significant negative relationships with only T A and T WARMQ (after accounting for spatial autocorrelation), although ∑B was marginally significant ( p = 0.06).
The difference between the two measurements was marginally significant with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, Z = − 1.87, p = 0.06.
The gender-based analysis showed that systolic BP ( β = 0.44, P <0.05) and HDL-C ( β = -0.36, P <0.05) were independently and significantly correlated with the d-ROMs levels in females with T2DM, while there was a marginally significant correlation between HDL-C and the d-ROMs levels ( β = -0.36, P =0.06) in males with T2DM.
Marginally significant association was found in prospective studies (0.94 (0.87–1.00), P =0.06, I 2 =0.00%) but not in case–control studies ( Figure 4 ).
A one-way ANOVA on trustees’ average back transfers showed a marginally significant effect of Group, F (2, 27) = 3.20, p = .06, η p 2 = .20.
In addition, gene SIK3 (ARIC p = 2.85×10 -23 ) was marginally significant in FHS (p = 6.01×10 -2 ), and reached genome-wide significance in the combined analysis (p < 1×10 -8 ).
Sample size had a significant effect on effect size ( p = 0.0394) and age had a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.0603).
Additionally, a 3-factor ANOVA shows a marginally significant interaction between experimental condition and portion of block in the frontal neural response ( F (1, 176) = 3.57, p = 0.0604; permutation based TypeIIISS(1, 176) = 129.4, p = 0.07705).
Differences in cell viability, with respect to control, between TMD and OD were marginally significant (F(7,48) = 2.11, p = 0.0605).