“marginally significant”

Leaf epiphytic methanotroph RA was excluded as a predictor of leaf fluxes to maintain parsimony, although it was marginally significant (β = −0.39, P = 0.08) in a more complex model (χ 2 = 8.5, P = 0.39) that included this path and its covariance with endophytic methanotroph RA (β = 0.73, P < 0.01).

control) on specific fears showed a marginally significant effect of risk communication; F (2, 703) = 2.48, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.007, d = 0.17.

The interaction between these two factors was marginally significant, F (1,26) = 3.26, p = 0.08; Simple main effect analysis showed that, while the percentage of double-‘yes’ responses decreased significantly from non-contradictory trials to contradictory trials for both judgment target ( p s < 0.01), the reduction was greater for the self-judgment, indicating that participants were more reluctant to attribute conflicting adjectives to self than other target.

Analyses of the contrasts of physically different saturation levels (LS versus HS) did not yield any significant regions associated with D 2 BP ND values of any subdivisions of striatum, but the D 2 BP ND value of left executive striatum in the objective faded condition (LS) versus the objective vivid condition (HS) contrast correlated with the left parietal cortex (left inferior parietal lobule (BA 40)) at a marginally significant level (cluster level of p = 0.08, FDR corrected), which overlapped with the left parietal cortex found in subjective faded condition (overlapped region was presented in Supplementary Fig.

As shown in Table 7 , only two genes, CDH17 and RNF151 , exhibited marginally significant differences in haplotype frequencies ( p = 0.08, Pearson’s chi-square test), suggesting a potential association with the QTL.

A marginally significant increase was instead noted in the use of volitional terms [ F (2,27) = 2,788; p = 0.080].

Tumor grade was marginally significant ( P value = 0.08). 4.2.

For awe, the overall regression model was marginally significant, F (2, 47) = 2.66, p = 0.08, R 2 = 0.10.

Paired t tests revealed a marginally significant, yet clinically meaningful, decrease in patient’s cancer symptoms ( t = 2.32, P = .08; MDASI mean; pre = 1.75, post = 1.04).

A marginally significant negative correlation between macroplastic area and TIN was observed ( β = −0.01 ± 0.006, t = −1.8, P = 0.08); no other significant effects of plastic contamination on the TIN pool were detected.

Furthermore, the main effect for body location was marginally significant ( F 2,120 =2.52, P =.08, η p 2 =.04).

non-predictive) and Epoch (1–5) on performance correct yielded a marginally significant main effect of Epoch, F (4, 44) = 2.25, p = .08, η p 2 = .17 (with a marginal linear increase in accuracy with Epoch: 91, 93, 93, 93, 95% for Epochs 1 to 5, F (1, 11) = 4.04, p = .07, η p 2 = .27).

3.1.2 Associations with previous institutionalization There was a marginally significant main effect of Group (b = −17.23, ꭓ2(1)= 3.06, p = .080), such that RTs tended to be slower among the PI versus Comp youth over and above the main effects of Stimulus and Block.

Except for non-significant differences in the MSCEIT ( p = 0.32) and marginally significant differences in category fluency ( p = 0.08), the cognitive scores on the MCCB total and other tests were significantly lower in patients than healthy controls (all p < 0.001).

There was a marginally significant ( p = 0.08) effect between subgroup and nirsevimab concentration, when evaluated using an ANOVA, with a significant difference observed at 13.6 μg /mL nirsevimab ( p = 0.007) (Supplementary Fig. 5 ).

The perceived severity of the written verbal cyberbullying [Beta = 0.39, t = 2.63, p = 0.01] and the perceived severity when the bystander was not upset [Beta = 0.50, t = 2.72, p = 0.01] had a significant influence on the asking for help from an adult bystander response, whereas the perceived severity of the public cyberbullying had a marginally significant effect [Beta = −0.27, t = −1.73, p = 0.08].

The main effect of tonal function was significant for normalized RTs, F 1 (1, 31) = 6.05, p < 0.05, MSE = 0.05, F 2 (1, 23) = 7.71, p < 0.05, MSE = 0.03, and marginally significant for correct responses, F 1 (1, 31) = 3.28, p = 0.08, MSE = 32.41, F 2 (1, 23) = 3.70, p = 0.07, MSE = 20.02, target word processing was more accurate and faster when presented in synchrony with a tonic chord than with a subdominant chord.

The effect was also marginally significant for T2D (p<0.08; PERMANOVA).

The reduction in pain intensity was marginally significant after adjusting for baseline values (P = 0.08) and there was no significant difference between the two groups after adjusting for all covariates (P = 0.11).

There was a significant difference in sessile polychaete biomass among treatments (One-way ANOVA, p = 0.03), and post-hoc tests revealed a significant difference between the low-density aquaculture and natural treatments (Tukey’s post-hoc test, p = 0.03), a marginally significant difference between high-density aquaculture and natural (p = 0.08), and no difference between low- and high- density aquaculture (p = 0.89; Table 1 ; Fig 3B ).

An exact logistic regression analysis revealed that the difference in the percentage of treatment failures between parasite groups was marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

First, as shown in Model 1 of Table 2 , upon controlling for demographic variables, leader autonomy-oriented help was positively associated with member self-efficacy (γ = 0.30, p < 0.001), while the effect of leader dependency-oriented help on member self-efficacy was marginally significant (γ = 0.06, p = 0.08).

However, there was a marginally significant time × sex interaction ( p = .08), suggesting that the decrease in suppression mainly applied to boys.

The correlation with phonological distance remained marginally significant even when controlling for both genealogy and geography (p = 0.08).

Consistently, in the external validation cohort, a marginally significant benefit from adjuvant therapy was observed only in group 5 (HR=0.324, 95% CI: 0.092–1.143, P =0.08) (Supplementary Table 6, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A863 ).