“marginally significant”

The interaction effect between the pre-post assignment and nationality is marginally significant (F = 4.25, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.15), while the three-way interaction involving pre-post assignment, individualism-collectivism orientation, and nationality is also marginally significant (F = 1.80, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.06).

A p = 0.05 significance level was considered for all the analyses, although marginally significant results (p = 0.05–0.10) were also reported.

Without the presence of an alpha value, the P value can be interpreted as P > 0.10, not significant; P ≤ 0.10, marginally significant; P ≤ 0.05, significant; and P ≤ 0.01, highly significant.

after 1996), patients with B-symptoms had marginally significant lower EFS (p = 0.05).

Activity was found to be a marginally significant risk factor ( P = 0.05).

Results Behavioral data The repeated measures ANOVA was performed for RTs and revealed that the interaction of attribute type x valence was marginally significant [F (1, 14) =5.801, P = 0.05].

The difference is marginally significant: p < 0.05, two-tailed.

The statistical interaction between dose and density was marginally significant for day of death ( H = 7.813, df = 3, p = 0.05; Figure 1B ) with tadpoles exposed to Dose 3 dying significantly earlier in low density tanks but not when held in high density conditions ( Figure 1B , Table S1 ). 3.

On the other hand, the freeze-dried EVs led to a slight, marginally significant GSH increase (116% ± 5, p = 0.05), while the positive control N-acetycysteine (NAC) at 5 mM produced a robust response of 200% (±3, p < 0.0001), as expected.

bergii biomass showed only a marginally significant difference among salinity treatments (one-way ANOVA: F = 4.35, p = 0.05), suggesting a negligible effect of salinity on its biomass change.

Besides rs6697469, there were 2 additional SNPs showed marginally significant association signals with hip fractures, which were rs10917588 ( P = 0.050) and rs7553831 ( P = 0.058).

As we have shown previously, inactivation of A8 has little impact on fasting levels of plasma TGs, cholesterol, and nonesterified fatty acids (NEFAs) ( Figure 5, A and B ) (although a modest, but marginally significant [ P = 0.05] reduction in mean TG levels was seen in the A8-KO mice when compared with WT animals).

Although not clearly evident in all animals, we found a marginally significant increase in cortical thickness of just under 10% between age-matched (P20-23) treated and control animals (Figure 2 ; paired t-test t = 3.255; p < 0.05; n = 8 animals).

A marginally significant association was observed between education level and QR code preference ( p = 0.050).

It remained marginally significant when controlling for province (β = 0.003, p = 0.05), but province itself was not significantly associated with total wait time (partial F test = 0.88, p = 0.56).

A marginally significant increase in the number of micronuclei was also observed in the group with composite fillings compared to the group without fillings (p=0.050).

First, the associations of the selected risk alleles were marginally significant [α (significance level of Bonferroni correction for multiple testing < P <0.05; α=0.05/35 SNPs/three genetic models=0.00048).

Follow‐up independent‐samples t tests showed that, compared to the TD group, there was a marginally significant decrease in amplitude for the ASD group at the posterior ROI, t (49) = −1.97, p = 0.05; d = 0.56, and a significant increase in amplitude at the frontal ROI, t (49) = 4.05, p < 0.001; d = 1.14; no group difference was present at the central ROI, t (49) = −1.66, p = 0.10; d = 0.47.

Analyses revealed only a marginally significant main effect of time on measures of vocal stability [F(1,17) = 4.43, p = 0.05].

To interpret this interaction, three separate 2 (Trial Type) × 5 (Block) within-subjects ANOVAs were conducted for each time-pressure condition. In the 4-second condition, a marginally significant main effect of trial type was found, F (1,19) = 4.23, p = .05, η p 2 = 0.18, a main effect of block, F (4,76) = 3.86, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.17, and an interaction between factors, F (4,76) = 4.31, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.19.

Compared to this, however, regarding social interaction scores, it was marginally significant ( p = 0.05), indicating a partial mediation effect.

While this reduction was insignificant ( p > 0.05) for RBC, HCT, HGB and MCH, it was marginally significant ( p < 0.05) for PLT and WBC.

These differences remained significant (Dysfunction in Interactions, F (1424) = 6.45, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.015) and marginally significant (Parental Distress, Difficult Child, F (1424) = 3.69, p = 0.05, η2 = 0.01 and F (1424) = 3.20, p = 0.07, η2 = 0.007, respectively) after controlling for dichotomized parental education (high school diploma or lower vs.

The statement “My family really tries to help me” was marginally significant, with current substance users being 54% more likely to disagree with this statement than those not using substances (aOR 1.54; 95% CI 0.998-2.391; P=0.05).

There was a marginally significant main effect for the nap condition (F 1,47 = 3.99, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.08, figure 2b ) such that the nap participants correctly matched English meanings to more Chinese characters they had not previously seen.