“marginally significant”

Second, the main effect of condition was marginally significant [ F (2,76) = 2.632, p = 0.079, post hoc power 0.509] ( Figure 6B ).

The duration of stage II was not significantly affected by male identity or the interaction (p > 0.209), although there was a marginally significant effect of female species (F 1,79 = 3.17, p = 0.079).

A comparison of performance in the last 50-m segment across the three tests revealed that the within-subject effect test indicated a marginally significant main effect of time, F = 3.296, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.171.

(5) This change in BR resulted in a marginally significant decline in bacterial growth efficiency (BGE) along the DOC gradient (r 2 = 0.30, F 1,10 = 3.94, P = 0.079, Fig. 8c ): (6) Discussion In this study, we evaluated a commercially available source of humic substances (Super Hume) for studying the effects of terrestrial DOC on the chemistry, physics, and biology of aquatic ecosystems.

The association between environmental attitudes and behavior was marginally significant, F (1, 138) = 3.13, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022, meaning that there was a trend for participants with higher levels of environmental attitudes to select environment-friendly options when printing (Cohen’s d = 0.30).

However, when the partial Mantel tests were conducted separately for mainland and island populations, there was no significant correlation among mainland population ( P = 0.27, r = 0.07), but there was marginally significant correlation among island populations ( P = 0.079, r = 0.49) ( Supplementary Figure S3 ).

The regression between respiration rates and distance from the nearest shore was marginally significant: ln(Respiration) = −2.648 + 0.559[ln(Distance)], Adjusted R 2 = 0.046, p = 0.079 (Figure 2 B).

For the parietal P1, the main effect of emotion type was marginally significant, F (2, 34) = 3.00, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.150.

There was a marginally significant difference in WM between adolescents and adults ( p = .079).

For the visual illusions task, the only difference we found was that the multivariate AQ-detail by Context interaction became marginally significant [ F (1,30) = 3.30, p = .079, η 2 = . 10].

However, a history of gastrectomy showed only a marginally significant association with snoring (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.91 to 5.11; p = 0.079).

Specific preparation also had significant effects on antisaccade accuracy ( F (2,53) = 12.882, p < 0.001) with a spatial preparation benefit of 4.5% for young adults ( F = 10.289, p < 0.005) and a marginally significant benefit of 2.5% for healthy elderly ( F = 3.518, p < 0.079) and a benefit of 3.9% for PD patients ( F = 3.330, p < 0.085), although no significant differences between groups were indicated ( F (2,53) = 0.541, p < 0.586, see Figure 4 B).

We also found a positive relation between paternal age and Absorption that was marginally significant for one set of twins (p = 0.079) and conventionally significant (p = 0.038) for the other set of twins in the third model, but not without the enrichment sample.

We also found the spines were 3% longer in towns, although this effect was marginally significant following the p ‐value correction for multiple tests ( Habitat : χ 1 2 = 4.93, p = .079), but we found no effect of habitat on any of the other morphological traits. 3.2.

avenae was slightly (marginally significant) higher if the leaves had been previously infested by S. avenae (two-sample t -test, t 7 = 2.06, p = 0.079).

S3 A ] and marginally significant in the mPFC [t (24) = 1.83, P = 0.079, 95% CI(−0.83,13.95), Cohen’s d = 0.37; SI Appendix , Fig.

Nevertheless, in a model with all response styles entered into the model simultaneously, a marginally significant relationship between rumination at time T−1 and negative affect at the subsequent time point was found (p = .079).

Analysis of high spans (OSPAN > 50, N = 9) revealed a trend towards a spatial by feature cueing interaction, F(1, 8) = 3.137, p = .114, η 2 = .282, with a marginally significant orientation cuing effect at validly cued spatial locations, F(1, 8) = 4.039, p = .079, η 2 = .336, but not at invalidly cued locations, F(1, 8) = 1.827, p = .213, η 2 = .186.

There was also a marginally significant decline ( p = 0.079) in MAR within the cancer-injected limb at 36 days compared with 18 days post-injection (0.91μm/d ± 0.12).

Concrete) as between-subject factors found a significant effect of sample: F (1,521) = 190.46, p < 0.001, no significant effect of condition: F (1,521) = 0.45, p = 0.501, and a marginally significant interaction effect: F (1,521) = 3.10, p = 0.079.

There was a marginally significant culture by somatic words interaction, B = 0.17, β = 0.19, SE = 0.10, t = 1.77, p = 0.079, a significant culture by relational concerns interaction, B = -0.31, β = -0.20, SE = 0.14, t = -2.22, p = 0.028, and a significant culture by interaction partner interaction, B = 0.65, β = 0.38, SE = 0.20, t = 3.22, p = 0.002.

Furthermore, baseline respiratory symptoms were significantly associated with FRC/TLC with more air trapping being associated with higher likelihood of having respiratory symptoms at baseline (RV/TLC association was marginally significant; p≤0.079).

There were also marginally significant interactions between Session and Lexicality, F(1,11) = 3.744, MSE = 136.739, p = 0.079, as well as between Lexicality, Hemisphere and Location, F(2,22) = 3.189, MSE = 52.667, p = 0.070.

The between-subjects effect of age was marginally significant, F (1,131) = 3.141, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.023, such that older children walked with lower normalized velocity than younger children.

The model was marginally significant, χ 2 = 5.07, df = 2, p = 0.079.