“marginally significant”

However, FI showed a marginally significant main effect of the website version [ F (2, 91) = 2.67, p = 0.074].

Furthermore, the log-rank test showed that there was a marginally significant difference in survival ( P = 0.074) among the four clusters, indicating the survival relevance of the sPA scores.

Follow-up paired t-tests were marginally significant for 1-back performance at the 4-week dose (t(28) = 1.86, p = .074, d = 0.35) and statistically significant at 8-weeks (t(27) = 3.36, p = .002, d = 0.65) and 12-weeks (t(24) = 3.37, p = .003, d = 0.65).

OT Reduced Subjective Fear Experience in Social Fear Naturalistic Contexts The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of emotion ( F (1,65) = 1434, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 0.957, Figure 1 a ) such that participants rated subjective fear considerably higher during fear trials (FS and FNS) than neutral ones, and a significant main effect of social ( F (1,65) = 76.81, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 0.542, Figure 1a ) reflecting lower fear during social trials (FS and NS) compared with non‐social trials, and a marginally significant main effect of treatment ( F (1,65) = 3.31, p = 0.074, η p 2 = 0.048, Figure 1a ).

In the traditional offering, this difference was significant and the median score of students who participated was 13.4 percent higher than the median score of nonparticipants (Mdn participating = 90.9, Mdn Notparticipating = 77.5, U = 396.5, p <0.0001); in the interactive offering, the difference was 4.5 percent and marginally significant (Mdn participating = 89.99, Mdn Notparticipating = 85.46, U = 184, p = 0.074).

The patients were dichotomized into lower and higher groups according to an LRR of 1.8, and there was a marginally significant difference in the ALP at POD 30 and the ALP ratio at POD 30 vs. 0 between the higher and lower LRR groups ( Table 3 , p = 0.074 and 0.082, respectively).

When controlling for VWMC, social anxiety was not significantly correlated with the spatial-blink effect under the goal-irrelevant distractor condition, although it was marginally significant, r = 0.29, p = 0.074.

The suppression exerted by the amblyopic eye on the fellow eye (crimson bar) is indeed significantly weaker than what is observed from the nondominant eye in controls ( t [17] = 3.273, P = 0.004, Cohen's d = 1.405; independent samples t -test), and the suppression exerted on the amblyopic eye (blue bar) is much stronger than on the nondominant eye (marginally significant: t [17] = 1.906, P = 0.074, Cohen's d = 1.742; independent samples t -test).

However, Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed no differences between specific education levels, except for a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.074) in the ranking of Idea 8 ( popular people ) between secondary education (HAVO, n = 23, M = 5.74) and university students ( n = 167, M = 4.40). 4.

aureus at the same time point ( Figure 3D ), only three of the extract contents of TW and TA showed statistically significant differences: 0.04 ( p < 0.001), 0.08 ( p = 0.002), and 1.25 mg/mL ( p = 0.008), and an additional 0.63 mg/mL showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.074).

Repeated-measures ANOVA on PANSS and all its subscales showed a marginally significant interaction effect (group × time: F = 2.2, df = 1, 39, p = 0.074), nonsignificant group effect ( F = 0.74, df = 1, 39, p = 0.48), and time effect ( F = 1.6, df = 4, 39, p = 0.28).

In that analysis, the difference between women across groups became marginally significant (Wald = 3.185, p = .074).

110 The distribution of the four patient groups differed between responders and non-responders, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.074, Figure 6 H).

The overall sample also showed a significant decrease in BMD (p = 0.004), while the group with U-Cd levels of 2–4.99 μg/g creatinine showed a marginally significant decrease (p = 0.074).

The correlations between TD and state anxiety for the left and right hemispheres in R1 were marginally significant (r = -0.38, p = 0.074; r = -0.39, p = 0.069).

In the present study, previous history of fracture was identified as an independent risk factor for females and increased 3.68-time risk of ankle fracture, and marginally significant for males (P = 0.074).

Three a-priori comparisons of these means with Shaffer control for alpha inflation revealed marginally significant differences between little and medium levels of technicality, Δ M = 0.31, σ = 0.16, t = 1.96, p = 0.074, and between little and high levels of technicality, Δ M = 0.37, σ = 0.16, t = 2.25, p = 0.074.

The interaction was marginally significant ( F (1,21) = 3.52, p = 0.074).

The difference in the Apgar score at 5 min between the two groups was marginally significant ( p = 0.074).

In the multivariable analysis in the three studies, however, the results were conflicting, being marginally significant ( p = 0.074), significant ( p = 0.01), and non-significant ( p = 0.137) [ 5 , 11 , 20 ].

At the post-test, the experimental group’s self-compassion scores were higher, but the difference was marginally significant (B = 10,66, p = 0,074).

83.3%, P = 0.014), although it was marginally significant at postoperative 12 months (60.0% vs. 100.0%, P = 0.074; 70.6% vs. 100.0%, P = 0.133).

Multigroup modeling using the main model indicated a significant sex difference in the effect of potassium excretion on depression [Δχ 2 (1) = 8.150, P = 0.004] and a marginally significant sex difference for sodium excretion [Δχ 2 (1) = 3.196, P = 0.074].

Our study found a marginally significant difference in the flanker interference effect between the stimulation and sham groups ( t (47) = 1.83; p = 0.074).

Subsequently, a repeated-measures ANOVA with the within-subjects factor session (session 1–5) and the between-subjects factor optotype (Landolt-C versus Tumbling-E) was conducted and revealed a marginally significant main effect of session (F [3.05, 64.03] = 2.4; p = 0.074; η 2 = 0.10; Huynh-Feldt corrected), but neither a significant main effect of optotype (F [1, 21] = 0.31; p = 0.58; η 2 = 0.015) nor a significant interaction between session and optotype (F [3.05, 64.03] = 0.93; p = 0.43; η 2 = 0.04; Huynh-Feldt corrected).