“marginally significant”

In regard to spontaneous gamma activity, there was a marginally significant negative association among baseline gamma in the primary somatosensory cortex and CD4 nadir ( P = 0.097), as well as a robust relationship amongst these variables in the left DLPFC, [ R (85) = −0.33, P = 0.009; Fig. 5] .

This improvement in prediction was marginally significant, model-based p = 0.097 and prediction R 2 p = 0.101, rendering it unclear whether the small increase in predictive power afforded by amygdala connectivity was due to chance.

The MDI was higher for the GC cases compared with the healthy controls, and the result was marginally significant ( p = 0.097) for the total population.

However, both treatments resulted in on-average increases to yield ( Figure 1A ), which included a marginally significant 1.17-fold increase for BC1 (p = 0.097), and a significant 2.22-fold increase for BC2 (p = 0.003).

The teams’ average FWHR remained a marginally significant predictor of total points negotiated ( b = 1.31, SE = 0.78, t [109] = 1.67, p = 0.097) and the teams’ maximum FWHR remained a significant predictor of total points ( b = 1.23, SE = 0.57, t [109] = 2.16, p = 0.033).

A marginally significant positive correlation was found during Stroking ( ρ = 0.34, p = 0.097, BCa 95% CI − 0.139–0.691) and Playing ( ρ = 0.41, p = 0.070, BCa 95% CI 0.037–0.682).

For men, reactance at T1 was marginally significant ( r = −.392, p = .097): the more men felt restricted in their freedom the less they exercised at T2.

For AMS category, partial regression coefficients of “Sleepiness on rising” and “Refreshing” were significant ( P < 0.05, respectively), whereas that of “Δ P B per hour from the 5th to the summit” was marginally significant ( P = 0.097).

For the head we observed a significant main effect of valence ( F 1,90 = 18.32, p <0.001), with more positive values for positive than negative scenarios, no significant main effect of scenario ( F 3,270 = 1,17, p = 0.323) and a marginally significant interaction valence x scenario ( F 3,270 = 2.12, p = 0.097).

Besides, the analysis also showed that the interaction variable of exposure × social support was a marginally significant predictor of outgroup attribution (β = −0.10, se = 0.01, p = 0.097).

Firstly, we revealed a marginally significant negative TGP × FGA × unemployment interaction effect ( β = −0.06, p = 0.097) on the chance of starting VET (DV1_start).

However, frass P concentrations declined as grasshopper density increased, and the correlation between frass P and grasshopper density was marginally significant ( n = 5, r = −0.809, P = 0.097) at treatment-level ( Fig. 2h ) and highly significant ( n = 45, r = −0.467, P = 0.001) at quadrat (cage) level ( Fig.

There was a marginally significant main effect of Response Side ( b = –0.0076, t = –1.6574, p = .097), with a tendency to respond slower with the left hand.

Chi-square tests revealed significant demographic differences between the clusters in terms of age ( χ 2 (4) = 10.78, p = 0.029) and continent ( χ 2 (3) = 25.54, p < 0.001), and marginally significant differences for educational level ( χ 2 (4) = 7.86, p = 0.097) and robot encounters ( χ 2 (2) = 5.28, p = 0.071).

For the third control variable, spatial ability, an ANOVA showed a marginally significant main effect of emotional design [ F (2,222) = 2.35, p = 0.097, η p 2 = 0.02].

The main effect of base attractiveness was marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 2.901, p = 0.097, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\eta_{p}^{2}$$\end{document} η p 2 = 0.071.

None of these covariates were significant although T-stage was marginally significant (p = 0.097) ( table 2 ).

Other genes putatively associated with polyketide synthesis with significant or marginally significant changes in transcript abundance included polyketide synthase modules and related proteins (Gene ID: JL721_1454, direct, low, p = 0.0970, log 2 fold change = 0.33), antibiotic biosynthesis monooxygenase (Gene ID: JL721_3539 and Gene ID: JL721_2332, direct, low, multiple genes, p < 0.01, log 2 fold c

As represented by the stratification analysis ( Table 2 ), this effect, although marginally significant in POSH data ( P = 0.097, HR = 0.75, 95% C.I.= 0.53, 1.06), has similar patterns in both data sets ( Figure S1 ) and the significance is largely improved in the pooled analysis ( P = 0.0035, HR = 0.73, 95% C.I. = 0.59, 0.9).

A subordinate ANOVA that was run separately for distractor noise patches, including the factor Cueing (cued, uncued) and the factor Extracted Field (Localizer, Surround), indicated that the main effect of Cueing was marginally significant ( F (1,31) = 2.938, p = .097, ηp 2 =. 087) with a significant interaction between Cueing and Extracted Field (F (1,31) = 8.047, p = .008, ηp 2 =.206 ) , confirming higher cueing effects for the Surround than for the Localizer (cued vs. uncued Noise Localizer: t (31) = -.899, p = .376, Cohen’s d: -.16; cued vs. uncued Noise Surround: t (31) = -2.36, p = .025, Cohen’s d: -.42).

Among the poor breath-hold cases, no significant difference was observed between overall image quality between LAVA Star navi+ and Cartesian LAVA navi+ ; however, these differences were marginally significant ( P = 0.0971).

The improvements in components that were not statistically significant were as follows: role limitations due to emotional problems improved by 20 units (64.3%, marginally significant, p = 0.0975), social functioning improved by 3.1 units (6%), and perceived health change improved by 3.3 units (10.4%).

A main effect of neuroticism scores was marginally significant (F(1,18) = 3.04, p = 0.098) for fear ratings, resulting from fear ratings being higher in participants with higher neuroticism scores.

In follow-up analyses there was a marginally significant effect for reward group on the drift rate in incongruent trials, t (403.85) = −1.66, p = .098, Cohen’s d = −0.16, 95% CI [−0.36–0.03].

The main effect of CRS was marginally significant, F (1, 28) = 2.93, p = .098, η p 2 = .09, because ERs of the CRS+ condition tended to be higher (5.4%) than those of the CRS− condition (4.7%).