“marginally significant”

Regarding the N100 latency, we did to find a main effect of group , F (1, 27) = 1.61, p =.216, η 2 p = 0.056, but the main effect of condition was marginally significant, F (1, 27) = 3.68, p =.066, η 2 p = 0.120.

For VSV, only eleven reads were detected in one replicate of the direct extraction treatment, whereas thousands of reads were recovered when using high-speed centrifugation (Supplementary Table S1 ), these differences being marginally significant ( t -test: P = 0.066).

The high-performers, however, exhibited a marginally significant decline in VWM performance (t(11) = 2.039, p = 0.066) from the sham condition (5.405; std err = 0.225) to the in-phase theta tACS condition (5.010; std err = 0.29).

The linear mixed-effects models showed that, compared with the control group, the intervention was associated with a significantly decreased Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (β = −0.67, p = 0.012), and a marginally significant effect on reducing roommates’ influence on sleep schedule (β = −0.21, p = 0.066).

For future metabolic risk score, BCAAs showed a marginally significant effect on metabolic syndrome risk (OR = 3.222, p = 0.066), while different results were from Hellmuth et al.'s study, which suggested tyrosine, rather than BCAAs, was the useful biomarker for future risk of IR and metabolic risk in 80 obese children with one-year follow-up.

Consistent with this, a clear positive relationship was observed between diameter and FFG richness ( R 2 = 0.44, p = 0.003) (Figure 5c ), while a marginally significant relationship was identified between APL and FFG richness ( R 2 = 0.20, p = 0.066) (Figure 5d ). 3.3 Keystone Taxa in Shaping Biodiversity Keystone taxa which had higher centrality (higher degree or higher betweenness) were critical for modules and co‐occurrence networks and played important roles in determining biodiversity.

The March infection variable loses significance in Column 5 but is still marginally significant ( p ‐value = .066).

The results of time estimation showed that the difference between the experimental and control groups was marginally significant, t (55) = 1.87, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.5, and that the experimental group ( M = 7.57 s, SD = 3.63) was smaller than the control group ( M = 9.34 s, SD = 3.41).

A positive association of totT with CBF was observed (r = 0.167, P = 0.023), which was marginally significant after restricting analysis to HT non-users (r = 0.161, P = 0.066).

Results showed that Moderate Cluster VI significantly differed from the overall distribution, χ 2 = 11.57, p < 0.003, df = 3, while Simple Cluster I and Cluster II were marginally significant, χ 2 = 7.21, p = 0.066, df = 3, and χ 2 = 7.38, p = 0.061, df = 3, respectively.

Meanwhile, a marginally significant increase between pre- and post-tool use in the condition of searching with a cane ( p = 0.066) was found.

The fixed effects omnibus tests indicated a marginally significant effect for role of session participant ( F = 3.38, p = 0.066) and a significant effect for Order of OD-session ( F = 4.07, p = 0.044), suggesting that these variables were associated with the SRS scores.

Participants showed a marginally significant increase in overall discrimination accuracy (day 1: 83.8 ± 8.0%, mean ± standard deviation; day 2: 86.8 ± 5.8%; paired t test, t (19) = 1.95, P = 0.066; Cohen’s d av = 0.43) [ 41 ] and a significant decrease in overall discrimination RTs (day 1: 696 ± 70 ms; day 2: 665 ± 72 ms; paired t test, t (19) = 3.17, P = 0.005; Cohen’s d av = 0.43).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between Condition, Block, and Group, F (3,114) = 2.47, p < 0.066, η p 2 = 0.06.

The results also showed a trend of increased neutrophils in the microenvironment, although this trend along the stage progress were marginally significant (trend test, P = 0.066; Fig. 7c ).

A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA showed that the interaction effect was marginally significant for PSI ( p = 0.066) and statistically significant for both the child domain of PSI ( p = 0.049) and ECBI ( p = 0.013).

The correlation between Shannon’s index with vegetable land was marginally significant in this model ( p = 0.066).

As a result, in the Results section, under the subheading ‘Patient selection and risk factors’, “HIV status was significant ( p value = 0.041) between the two groups, showing that HIV positive patients suffered relapse in the first two years more frequently than HIV negative patients.” now reads: “HIV status was significant ( p value = 0.035) between the two groups, showing that HIV positive patients suffered relapse in the first two years more frequently than HIV negative patients.” Additionally, the following sentence was removed: “The gender was marginally significant for males, suggesting a trend of males suffering relapses in the first two years more frequently than females ( p value = 0.066).” Furthermore, in the Discussion section, “Regarding the epidemiological and risk factors of the relapsed TB cases studied, we found that relapse was significantly earlie

Perceived environmental risk demonstrated a marginally significant positive relationship (β = 0.192, p = 0.066), indicating that environmental concerns motivate compliance.

On the right side (n=43), a significant effect was observed for time ( P <0.001), while the effect of the intervention was marginally significant ( P =0.066).

In addition, we observed a marginally significant main effect of emotion at anterior electrodes over both hemispheres for the Nc (400 to 600 ms), F (1, 31) = 3.65, p = 0.066 and a significant main effect of emotion at anterior electrodes over both hemispheres for the Pc (600 and 800 ms), F (1, 31) = 9.45, p = 0.004.

The valence by self-investment interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 120) = 3.44, p = .066, η p 2 = .03.

None of the variables predict self-harming behavior, except for the two related to interaction with content in digital social networks self-injury ( p = 0.043) and suicide ( p = 0.001) content in digital social networks; suicide ideation is marginally significant ( p = 0.066).

Both temperatures had a non‐significant difference in their attack rate (Da = 0.12, z = 0.58, p = 0.55) and a marginally significant difference in their handling time (Dh = 0.80, z = 1.84, p = 0.066).

The intervention also significantly increased parents’ self-efficacy for condom use, b(SE)=0.60(0.21), p=0.007, and showed marginally significant effects on parent and child HIV knowledge [b(SE)=0.60(0.32), p=.066, b(SE)=0.85(0.43), p=0.052, respectively].