“marginally significant”

Incursions peaked seasonally, as indicated by the significant effect of the cosine component of the day of the year ( β = 0.47 ± 0.18 SE, P = 0.008), while the sine component was marginally significant ( β = 0.25 ± 0.15, P = 0.085; Fig. 3A ).

For non-cognates, in the first repetition there was a significant interaction between experiment and priming (F1(1,115) = 11.495, MSE = 14143.137, p = .001; F2(1,172) = 14.361, MSE = 29736.914, p < .001), a significant main effect of language (F1(1,115) = 16.382, MSE = 37476.322, p<001; F2(1,172) = 9.966, MSE = 127153.134, p = .002), a marginally significant main effect of experiment by subjects only (F1(1,115) = 3.010, MSE = 37476.322, p = .085; F2<1) and marginally significant interactions between experiment and language also by subjects only (F1(1,115) = 3.761, MSE = 37476.322, p = .055; F2(1,172) = 1.404, MSE = 127153.134, p = .238).

5 Supplemental individual-level analysis using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model ( Kenny et al., 2006 ) showed convergent results; the Actor × Partner interaction was marginally significant, b = -171.33, SE = 8.49, t (102) = -1.74, p = 0.085 95% CI[-366.68, 24.21].

When we also adjusted for FH and APOE4 status, the results remained unchanged with the exception that the posterior cingulate finding became marginally significant ( P = .085). 3.3.

In contrast to the first three sampling times, wherein the main effect of movement speed was either significant (PeakVel: F (2,38) = 70.58, p < 0.0005; EOT: F (2,38) = 21.14, p < 0.0005) or marginally significant (EOT + 1 s: F (2,38) = 2.76, p = 0.085), the main effect of movement speed was absent at EOT + 2 s (F (2,38) = 0.91, p = 0.417) and at all subsequent time points.

An ANOVA found a marginally significant main effect of texture type, F (1, 11) = 3.59, p = 0.085, partial η 2 = 0.246, and no interaction between texture type and slant, F (7, 77) = 1.20, p = 0.313, partial η 2 = 0.098.

However, the interaction between group and elevation was marginally significant (Type II ANOVA, F1, 15 = 3.41, P = 0.085), suggesting that the relationship between elevation and haplotype number may differ between groups.

Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and major comorbidity showed a marginally significant lower risk of COVID-19 disease (hazard ratio = 0.533, p = 0.085) and hospital admission (hazard ratio = 0.411, p = 0.061) in patients with positive MERS-CoV.

Overall, the odds of mental health distress increased by a marginally significant 22% (OR 1.22 [CI 0.99–1.49] p = 0.085).

Although those improvements in sensitivity and accuracy did not achieve significant level (McNemar test, P = 0.250), there was marginally significant in C-index improvement ( P = 0.085 and 0.0918 for OS and RFS, respectively).

The correlation between runs and accuracy on the chain model was marginally significant when condition was factored out, r (37) = 0.279, p = 0.085.

The phylogenetic signal is marginally significant for foliar [C] under warming (K = 0.121, P = 0.085), foliar [N] (K = 0.129, P = 0.067) and [P] (K = 0.132, P = 0.066) under N addition, foliar [N] under eCO 2 (K = 0.167, P = 0.080) (Table 1 ).

Some of the coefficients would be marginally significant when considered in isolation (such as that of supplementation on fine motor skill, with a non-reported individual P=0.085).

The mean value of Lymphocyte ratio % in the welder group (30.29 ± 6.19%) was lower than the non-welder group (32.32 ± 6.64%), but marginally significant (p = 0.085).

Genotyping was performed using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and high-resolution melting curve analyses. Results Although the genotype distributions of the CLOCK variants (rs1801260 and rs2412646) were not significantly different between patients with RLS and non-RLS controls, the allele frequencies of CLOCK rs1801260 showed marginally significant differences between the two groups (X 2 =2.98, p=0.085).

Partial Mantel tests controlling for the effect of time between sampling dates gave similar impacts of same vs different lake ( r = 0.372, P = 0.001) and same vs different host species ( r = 0.248, P = 0.001) on Prevosti distances. Our first AMOVA indicated marginally significant differences between P. ramosa genotypes in different lakes (variation explained = 11.9%, P = 0.085; Table 4 ), significant differences between genotypes infecting different host species within lakes (variation explained = 24.0%, P = 0.025; Table 4 ), and significant differences in P. ramosa genetic structure over time during outbreaks (variation explained = 15.2%, P = 0.002; Table 4 ).

In Bins 2 and 3, the two-way interaction between group and viewing condition was significant, F (2, 56) = 3.29, 3.35, p = 0.005, 0.042, generalized eta 2 = 0.07, 0.06, respectively This interaction was marginally significant in Bin 1, F (2, 56) = 2.58, p = 0.085, generalized eta 2 = 0.04.

Three dimensional LVEF was higher in patients with rejection, however it showed only a marginally significant association [OR 1.035 (0.995; 1.077), p = 0.085].

A marginally significant interaction effect was observed for reported outcome and relationship, F (1,77) = 3.05, p = 0.085, η p 2 = 0.04. 5.1.2.

The correlation coefficients were statistically significant for the left NAc subregions (core: r = −0.333, p = 0.024; shell: r = −0.297, p = 0.045) and marginally significant for the right NAc subregions (core: r = −0.257, p = 0.085; shell: r = −0.287, p = 0.053). 3.5. rsFC analysis between pre- and post-treatment in patients In the MDD group, the four NAc subregions showed increased rsFC with the bilaterial MCC, medial frontal gyrus, right putamen, and cerebellum after antidepressant treatment (voxel-level p < 0.001, cluster size ≥ 20 voxels).

The linear model found all the factors to be significantly associated with eGFR90 change except for a history of diabetes and emergency surgery, which were marginally significant ( p = 0.085 and p = 0.063, respectively).

Post hoc analyses revealed no significant simple effects, but a marginally significant RT difference in the high load condition ( P = 0.085).

In the geography-1 criterion, variation among groups was insignificant, whereas a marginally significant difference among groups (p = 0.085) was found using the geography-2 criterion.

The results indicated that in Chinese babble, the assimilators performed better than the convergers ( p = 0.047), and the divergers were better to a certain extent than the convergers (marginally significant, p = 0.085).

The main effect of materialism on the number of acres participants chose to cut was marginally significant ( B = 5.11, SE = 2.95, t = 1.73, p = 0.085, 95%CI = [−0.71, 10.92]), and there was no main effect of decision context on the number of acres ( B = 6.33, SE = 4.04, t = 1.56, p > 0.05, 95%CI = [−1.64, 14.30]).