“marginally significant”

4 A) of benthic macroinvertebrates, while the differences in δ 13 C values among species were marginally significant (p = 0.068, Kruskal–Wallis test, n = 60, Fig. 4 B).

The flgH mutation (large morphotype from monoculture #4) also had reduced biofilm formation, but the difference was marginally significant ( t test, P = 0.068) ( Fig. 5 ).

Error rates were low overall and the smaller error rates for congruent (.045) than incongruent items (.059) was marginally significant, F(1,39) = 3.51, MSE = 0.0013, p<.068, η 2 p = .08.

Moreover, differences in richness of typical grassland species among treatment were recorded, even if marginally significant (F = 5.69, p = 0.068).

incorrect for conflict problems, t (42) = 4.64, p < .001, d = 0.71; (2) the same difference holds for no-conflict problems, t (42) = 4.60, p < .001, d = 0.70; (3) correct responses to conflict problems were produced with greater confidence than correct responses to no-conflict problems, t (67) = 2.72, p = .008, d = 0.33; (4) incorrect responses to conflict problems were presented with greater confidence than incorrect responses to no-conflict problems, though this difference was marginally significant, t (34) = 1.88, p = .068, d = 0.32, which most likely relates to the fact that this was the pairwise comparison (out of the 6 tests presented here) with fewer datapoints; indeed, the difference in overall values for these cells (not conditional on whether participants committed both types of error)

Reaction time (RT) analysis The 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of Event Congruence, F (1, 19) = 3.753, p = .068, η p 2 = 0.165, with shorter RTs in the event-related ( M = 523 ms, SE = 18 ms) versus event-unrelated condition (536 ms, SE = 17 ms).

We also found a marginally significant three‐way interaction between tree species identity, water treatment, and inoculation treatment on leaf number (χ 2 3,298 = 7.14, p = 0.068), suggesting that how foliar growth responds to inoculation in a general sense (i.e., regardless of composition of the inoculum) depends on water regime.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between participants’ and stimulus faces’ cultural backgrounds ( F (1, 58) = 3.45, p = .068), indicating that gaze deviation degree with 50% probability of eye-contact acceptance in Finnish participants was greater for Japanese than Finnish faces ( F (1, 29) = 7.13, p = .012).

When we looked at the number of regular responses (coded as 1) as opposed to any other response (coded as 0) as the dependent variable and filler type as the predictor variable, a generalised linear mixed effect model showed a marginally significant difference between low- and high-frequency filler types, t = 1.8250, p = 0.068, reflecting a slightly higher percentage of regular responses for the low body-N filler condition (48.1%) compared to the high body-N filler condition (45.3%).

In contrast, we found a marginally significant ( p = 0.0681) decrease in ragweed biomass due to earthworm activity, suggesting that ragweed did not benefit from the earthworm-induced improvements in nutrients and soil structure, or that earthworms might have fed on roots as because they were foraging less on the surface [ 46 ] Our results show that the positive influence of earthworms on plant growth and soil properties can be reduced by light pollution.

When models included attitudes toward this specific BMP and run on the subset of respondents that reported being familiar with it, education and overall water knowledge ceased to be related to the implementation of downspout disconnections and only attitudes toward the BMP emerged as being marginally significant (χ 2 2 = 3.32, p = 0.0682), with a trend indicating that more favorable attitudes promoted greater implementation ( Fig 8 ).

Similar to the previous models, responses to communicative turns immediately before the INT were predictive of Productive [M3: adj R 2 = 0.107, F(1, 28) = 4.457, p = 0.044] and marginally significant of Receptive vocabulary development at 24 months post INT [M4: adj R 2 = 0.092, F(1, 25) = 3.627, p = 0.0683], but not at 36 months post INT ( Figures 2A,B ).

Compared to Ruxo 30 alone, the increased survival in mice treated with a combination of Ruxo 30 and Taxol 10 was marginally significant (p = 0.0684), but was significant when compared to Taxol 10 treatment alone (p = 0.0158) and Ruxo 75 in combination with Taxol (p = 0.0204, Figure 5E ).

In the Kaplan–Meier survival curves for cumulative AD mortality, higher levels of blood cadmium showed marginally significant association with increased mortality at baseline and in patients over 60 years of age ( p = 0.0684).

Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a marginally significant difference between surgery and non-surgery groups for overall mortality (Log-rank p = 0.0685, Fig. 2 d) and cancer-specific mortality (Log-rank p = 0.0638, Fig. 2 b).

However, the correlation between the arousal rating for each picture and the 50% threshold for the detection of desaturation inferred from Probit analysis was marginally significant [ r = −.466, t (14) = −1.97, p = .0687], whereas the correlation inferred between the valence rating for each picture and 50% threshold was not significant [ r = .09, t (14) = 0.34, p = .7414].

Nevertheless, adjusting for the other variables, the volume of ACD was not statistically significant, and the association with the time variable was marginally significant ( p = 0.069).

Among religious groups, 20.7% of Orthodox women experienced verbal discouragement of family planning, compared to 13.0% of Muslim women and 14.1% of women with Protestant/Other religious affiliation; these differences were marginally significant ( p = 0.069).

Interestingly, further analysis revealed that British participants perceived their past selves as being further away than their future selves at a marginally significant level, F (1, 80) = 3.41, p = 0.069, Cohen’s d = 0.407.

Analysis of the subsequent TCN effect in the time window 180–300 ms post go-signal onset indicated a marginally significant laterality × electrode interaction, F (1,11) = 4.074, p = .069, η p 2 = .27.

We note that in additional analyses treating out-degree centrality as continuous, the interaction effect between out-degree centrality and neural responding remained significant in the negative affect ROIs ( p = .044; Table S5 ) and was marginally significant in the social pain ROIs ( p = .069; Table S4 ), but was not significant in the mentalizing ROIs ( p = .116; Table S6 ).

FSH increased (6.54 mlU/ml) compared to an increase (1.76 mlU/ml) in placebo group, which was marginally significant (p=0.069).

Time Elapse From Equivalence Tests and IRAP Time between equivalence tests and IRAP had a marginally significant effect on the modulation of D-IRAP for trial type 1 [Type 1 right after : Mean = 0.72, SD = 0.35; Type 1 7 days : Mean = 0.58, SD = 0.46; t (133) = 1.83, p = 0.069], as depicted in Figure 4 .

In line with our expectations, we found a marginally significant difference when comparing the banner AOI hit likelihoods for static and animated banner advertisements containing a face, χ 2 (1, N = 108) = 3.315, p = 0.069, showing that animated faces were 2.073 times more likely to direct participants’ attention to the advertisement than static faces.

The difference between high and low-risk groups ( M = 3.44, SD = 2.40) was marginally significant ( p = 0.069).