“marginally significant”

37% in the PAZ only group, a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.069).

This broadband increase was marginally significant [ t (32) = 1.89, p = 0.069].

Comparing Group D versus Group B and Group D versus Group C, the difference in overall survival was marginally significant, and in favor of Group D ( P = 0.069 and P = 0.059, respectively).

The C/N showed marginally significant correlations with arsenic resistance ( p = 0.069) and carbon cycling genes ( p = 0.073), and significant correlation with nitrogen fixation genes ( p = 0.024).

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.

However, in terms of 5-year OS and DFS, significant ( P < 0.001 for OS) or marginally significant ( P = 0.069 for DFS) differences in patient survival between molecular subtypes were observed (Supplementary Fig.

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).

Condition (i.e., whether a population originated from unaffected or oiled areas) had marginally significant effects on genetic distance ( F ST ) among populations (GLM, F = 4.06, df = 1, P = 0.069, Table S3 in Supporting Information ).

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

P2 components (140–190 ms) The Model × Electrodes interaction was marginally significant (F[1,14] = 3.890, p = 0.069, η p 2 = 0.218).

Whereas no significant difference in female weight was observed 4 days after dsRNA treatment ( P = 0.9847), a marginally significant increase was observed at 8 days ( P = 0.0694) with females becoming significantly heavier at 12 days after PmRuvbl1 silencing ( P <0.0001), compared to control ( Fig 1E ).

Effects of IPAG on ergosterol content were marginally significant (two-way ANOVA, F = 2.202, p = 0.0694), and the effect of LiCl was significant (two way-ANOVA, F = 3.012, p = 0.0391), and there was an interaction between the two factors (two Way-ANOVA, F = 2.260, p = 0.0167).

Interaction effects over time points were only significant for explosive upper body strength [F (2.112) = 5.9670, p = 0.00345], although marginally significant for explosive leg strength [F (2.108) = 2.7179, p = 0.06986] ( Table 5 ). 4.

The jobless people were following the local community for obtaining information (more than 50%), and the relationship between the source of information and occupation was marginally significant (χ 2 = 23.863, p = 0.0699).

Post hoc analyses with Tukey’s HSD multiple comparisons correction revealed a significant difference between the total word count in letter versus category fluency in controls ( P < 0.001) and (marginally significant) in PSP ( P = 0.07).

We found a marginally significant main effect of congruence (χ 2 (1) = 3.1, p = 0.07), a main effect of task (χ 2 (1) = 5.0, p = 0.02) and no main effect of AOI (χ 2 (3) = 1.8, p = 0.6).

The gender difference in the estimated bodyweight change between 2018 and 2020 was marginally significant (p=0.07).

There was a marginally significant positive relationship between dung N content and N 24H , (Fig. 2 , P = 0.07, R 2 = 0.25, n = 17).

In addition, there was a marginally significant age difference between the two groups, with higher age in HC compared to the PTSD patients (40.58 ± 12.99 vs. 45.47 ± 14.21 years; t = 1.86, p = 0.07, d = 0.35).

Interactions between relatedness categories and sex makeup weakened and were no longer significant (for play: P =0.555; for grooming: p=0.243); sex category×age difference interactions remained highly significant for grooming (p<0.001) and were marginally significant for play (p=0.070).

The model also shows that the difference between Government media and TV news was marginally significant (t = −1.792, p = .07) with Government having higher estimates than TV news.

An ANOVA performed on data after the exclusion of those trials on which participants guessed the targets correctly was marginally significant, F (3, 177) = 2.39, p = .070, η p 2 = .039.

As such, 12 to 72 tests (median of 12) were conducted per literature association, and we classified as “marginally significant” those associations with KW p value between 0.05 and 0.001 (nominal p value of 0.001 with 72 tests yields a Bonferroni-corrected p value ~0.07).

However, a main effect of time period was significant ( F [2.40, 28.79] = 32.34, p < 0.01, η 2 p = 0.73) and an interaction of test beverage × time period was marginally significant ( F [3.40, 40.74] = 2.45, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.17).

This dose-response reduction was marginally significant when the treatments were conducted in air ( p = 0.07), but not significant when they were conducted anaerobically. 3.3.