“only marginally significant”

Both groups exhibited implicit adaptive salience (see Table 1 ), though this effect was only marginally significant in the TRS group [controls: mean = 8.85 ms, SD = 17.34 ms, t(30) = 2.841, P = 0.008; patients: mean = 12.28 ms, SD = 24.87 ms, t(17) = 2.093, P = 0.052].

t -tests demonstrated that these correlations were significant in all scene-selective ROIs except for the LH RSC, where the correlation was only marginally significant (LH PPA: r ̄ = .17, t (14) = 3.05, p < .009; RH PPA: r ̄ = .15, t (14) = 3.06, p < .008; LH RSC: r ̄ = .08, t (14) = 1.88, p < .08; RH RSC: r ̄ = .15, t (14) = 4.29, p < .001; LH OPA: r ̄ = .23, t (14) = 7.38, p < .000003; RH OPA: r ̄ = .16, t (14) = 2.24, p < .04).

lnCatalase was associated with worse Reasoning (b = -.081, p < .001), but the associated p value from the multivariate test was only marginally significant at .051. lnUreA was associated with worse Reasoning (b = -.059, p < .01); the p value from the associated multivariate test was .049.

In a multivariate model using all variables homozygosity was only marginally significant ( p > 0.01).

In the multivariate model, living in severe poverty was only marginally significant ( p < 0.01) associated with having increased odds of having experienced a most unsafe abortion.

In the partial correlation analysis, the influence of # uAUG on d N became only marginally significant ( P = 0.01, based on # uAUG of C. reinhardtii genes; P = 0.04, based on # uAUG of V. carteri genes) ( table 2 ), whereas ExpLev mRNA remained significantly negatively correlated with d N (ρ p = −0.276, P < 10 − 63 ) and d N / d S (ρ p = −0.128, P < 10 − 13 ) ( table 2 ).

Interestingly there were three SNPs in GSN (rs10985196, rs7046030 and rs12683459), all highly correlated with pairwise r 2 values >0.90, which were highly significant (trend P<10 −6 ) in Sample Set 2 but only marginally significant in Sample Set 1 (trend P = 0.01–0.05).

Presence of an actively feeding larval stage consistently displayed the lowest effect size of the three factors, was not significantly associated with the shape of the nasal, stapes or dorsal sphenethmoid, and was only marginally significant (0.05 > p > 0.01) for the otic, maxilla and quadratojugal.

This pattern of increased autosomal expression was strongest in the unfiltered data set (Wilcoxon tests; female P = 1.52 × 10 −6 ; male P = 5.78 × 10 −5 ), but average expression differences and strength of significance reduced rapidly with a small increase in filtering threshold: Although differences were significant when filtering at 2 FPKM (female P = 6.26 × 10 −6 ; male P = 2.02 × 10 −4 ), they were only marginally significant at 3 FPKM (female P = 0.01; male P = 0.05) and nonsignificant when filtering at 4 FPKM (female P = 0.12; male P = 0.96; fig. 2 b ; table 1 ; supplementary figs.

These commonly connected pathways are also perturbed in ASD except that they are only marginally significant ( P = 0.01 to 0.10, table S2).

Floral density decreased with increasing drought severity in both datasets, although this relationship was only marginally significant at the seven sites (RMBL: Figure 2a ; β = −0.06, SE = 0.01, t = −4.22, p < 0.01; seven sites: Figure S3a ; β = −0.18, SE = 0.08, t = −2.24, p = 0.06).

This treatment was also repeated twice over a 12-month period ( Figure 1B3 , estimate = –0.52, p=0.01, GLMM as above, see Table 1 for the results of each repetition, note that the second repeat was only marginally significant).

Collapsing over SOAs, the overall effect of 13 ms was only marginally significant, F 1 (1, 90)=12.43, p <01; F 2 (1, 21)=3.59, p =.07.

5 , neither scenario substantively changes our conclusions, with the only changes in significance being for percent Latino/a and percent without a high school diploma—both of which were only marginally significant in our primary models ( p > 0.01).

While this effect was only marginally significant after correction, it was replicated in the PP analysis ( β = -1.49, 95% CI: -2.62 to -0.36, p = 0.01, adjusted p = 0.023, d = 0.38) ( Supplementary Material 6 ).

The differences between lymphocyte percentage at pre-infection and at LTBI endpoint were only marginally significant ( p = 0.01), but the differences between pre-infection and ATB were found to be far more significant ( p = 0.0001, Figure 4 , Supplementary Figure S2 ).

In this case, the effect size remains similar ( β 1 =−0.0033, s.e.=0.0013), but is only marginally significant ( P =0.0101, F -test).

The CD‐based SJT score correlated more strongly than the HH‐based SJT score with the honesty–humility subscale, but this difference was only marginally significant ( t (173) =−2.54, p = 0.011, d = 0.39).

Differences by SES quintile were only marginally significant for non-Hispanic Black patients (p = 0.0119 & 0.0158).

Gender also played a role, with a higher prevalence of GERD symptoms observed in men (49.0%, n = 255) compared to women (47.8%, n = 210), though this was only marginally significant (p = 0.012).

In fact, we observed a highly significant treatment effect on JA in the entire dataset and also when analysing each genotype with individual ANOVAs, while we detected only marginally significant differences among the mutants and the WT ( Figure 4B , p = 0.012 for genotype and p = 0.453 for the interaction).

In contrast, the difference in enrichment for non-LMB domains between human proteins targeted by viruses and generic human proteins is only marginally significant (Fold enrichment = 0.96; P = 0.012; Figure 5 ), suggesting that the observed enrichment for LMB domains among human proteins targeted by viruses is not a simple result of superior domain annotation among these proteins.

Although this result is only marginally significant after Bonferroni correction (adjusted threshold p < 0.0125), it still suggests a potentially relevant sex-based difference that should be explored in future case–control studies with larger sample sizes.

Co-incubation of the Aβ monomer with FLN led to a small increase in the cell viability (6%) ( Figure 6D ), but the difference was only marginally significant (P = 0.013), while ERB, EOY, and PHB led to a substantial increase in the cell viability (P<0.001).

When PTSD-only was contrasted against the comorbid group, the diagnostic group variable had a significant main effect ( p < .01) on each of the SF-12v2 scales except for Physical Functioning, for which the main effect of diagnostic status was only marginally significant ( p = .014).