“marginally significant”

In another replication dataset (the Hisayama Study), there was marginally significant association ( β = 2.18, SE = 1.2, P = 0.08).

The final model of PLSPM analysis showed that bottom-water oxygen had a strong positive effect on bioturbation ( P < 0.001), metazoan diversity ( P < 0.001), faunal respiration ( P < 0.001), and microbial aerobic respiration ( P < 0.001) and a negative direct effect on organic matter accumulation (C org , chlorophyll a, and THAA; marginally significant P = 0.08) and microbial anaerobic respiration ( P < 0.01).

Analysis by subcategories of damage in the whole cohort A significant global reduction in the risk for accruing lupus-related damage was seen among MP users (adjusted HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.82, p=0.02), with a marginally significant risk reduction of GC-related damage (adjusted HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.13, p=0.08).

The association between mortality and mean temperature for 1–13 August was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), with an OR of 1.71 (for a 0.37°C increase: 95% CI: 0.94, 3.11).

Marginally significant differences were found for anxiety symptoms ( p = .08).

Planned contrasts showed that when the advisee’s behavior was rude, it was judged as more arrogant (M = 5.33) than when it was either neutral (M = 3.64) or polite (M = 3.23), p < .0001; the difference between the neutral and polite forms of behavior was marginally significant, p = .08.

These tests (Friedman ANOVAs) revealed significant effects for organization, exact p = .0005, engagement, exact p = .04, and effectiveness, exact p = .003; we found only a marginally significant effect for persuasion, exact p = .08.

A marginally significant emotion × drug interaction ( F (2, 126.64) = 2.5438, p = 0.08) pointed to a more pronounced ZM activation for AngryToHappy trials (Fig. 1 , left), and ZM deactivation for HappyToAngry trials (Fig. 1 , right), in the placebo condition, especially compared to the amisulpride group.

3.3 Risk factors for development of PDR Univariate logistic regression adjusted for age and gender revealed three major risk factors for PDR: low DBP, duration of diabetes, and history of dyslipidemia while smoking status was marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

In all correlation analyses, a p ‐value =< .05 (without multiple comparison corrections) was accepted as statistically significant, though marginally significant results ( p =< .08) were also reported. 2.11.

C) on weight, BMI, fasting glucose, HOMA, and HbA1c, with a marginally significant effect for waist circumference ( P = 0.08).

Errors are higher in the HTN group (0.39) than in the non-HTN group (0.13), with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.080) and a medium effect size (0.258).

all post-VHFS blocks was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), indicating a trend toward overall increase in alpha ERD following VHFS.

After adjustment for age, gender, and diastolic blood pressure, this relationship remained significant for lnRMSSD and was marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for lnHFP.

Variables with p ≤ 0.001 were reported as highly significant, and those with p ≤ 0.08, also retained in the final model, were reported as marginally significant.

The two-way interaction between congruency and cue was marginally significant; F (1, 174) = 3.12, MSE = 161981516.9, p = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.02.

There was also a marginally significant Avoidance × Anxiety effect, p = .08.

A marginally significant Target Type × Cycle [ F (5, 50) = 2.63, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.20] and a significant Cue Type × Target Type × Cycle [ F (10, 100) = 3.55, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.26] interactions were also obtained.

stricta , there was a marginally significant, negative relationship between flower density treatment and the total number of visits ( F 2,24 = 2.67, p = 0.08; Figure 1 A, Table S1A ) and a significant, negative relationship with the per-unit resource visitation rate ( F 2,24 = 5.42, p = 0.01; Figure 1 C, Table S1A ), suggesting resource dilution effects.

The former time period, 1979-81, was chosen as a result of earlier work using Trent Cancer Registry data that had shown marginally significant differences (P=0.08) in crude survival between districts for women diagnosed in this period.

The mean number of barriers reported was significantly ( P < 0.05) higher for women compared to men in the 60–69 year age groups and marginally significant in the 70–79 and 80 years and over groups ( P = 0.08).

For sample 1, the overall model was marginally significant ( F (2, 210) = 2.59; p = 0.08), with a negative but non-significant linear effect ( t = −1.46; ns ), and a significant accelerating quadratic effect, ( t = 2.28; p < 0.05); and for sample 2, the overall model was significant ( F (2, 160) = 5.34; p = 0.006), with a negative but non-significant linear effect ( t = −1.32; ns ), and a significant accelerating quadratic effect, ( t = 3.03; p = 0.003).

A linear mixed model using the full sample (Time 1: TD N = 61, autism N = 66; Time 2: TD N = 43, autism N = 47; Time 3: TD N = 31, autism N = 30) revealed a time X hemisphere interaction ( F (2, 414.82) = 4.35, p = 0.01) and a marginally significant group X hemisphere interaction ( F (1, 414.80) = 3.05, p = 0.08).

= 0.04, t (17) = 3.66, p<.001) and marginally significant increases in life satisfaction (γ 00 = 0.09, S.E. = 0.05, t (17) = 1.73, p = .08) and happiness (γ 00 = 0.11, S.E. = 0.08, t (17) = 1.50, p = .13).

Within the left anterior-mid ventral temporal region of interest, the effect was marginally significant ( t (25) = 1.97, p = .08).