“only marginally significant”

At the subadult stage, sex was only marginally significant (0.41 ± 0.22, t 11 = 1.85, p = 0.07).

A genotype × system interaction accounted for 11.4% of the total variation in exudation, though it was only marginally significant (p = 0.07; Fig. 2 c).

However, if we relied on a Poisson regression model the results were substantially lower and were only marginally significant for robberies (b=−0.02; p=0.07) and total violence (b=−0.01; p=0.09), reducing the respective incidence by 3% and 2%.

However, this variable was only marginally significant (p-value = 0.07) when adjusting for time since installation in our logistic regression ( Table 3 ).

The mortality rates of the experimental groups were significantly higher at 25 °C than at 15 °C for CgA1-1 ( χ 2 = 5.30, df = 1, p < 0.05), while only marginally significant for CgA1-2 ( χ 2 = 3.20, df = 1, p = 0.07).

The interaction of Stimulation Level × Group was only marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 3.49, p = .07, η p 2 = .08, presumably indicating a more pronounced differentiation between the two stimulation intensity for the placebo group.

The same association is seen for those relatives who are also frequently contacted, though it is only marginally significant (chi-square association significance p = 0.07).

At the same time, the difference between unrelated and dissimilar pairs was only marginally significant at the 48 ms SOA (β = -0.01604, p < 0.07, respectively; see Figure 5 ).

Comparison of the unconstrained and constrained models using the chi-square difference was only marginally significant (Δχ 2 (Δ df = 15) = 23.89, p = .07), suggesting the model applies to both groups.

Regarding the LAD exposure, only the near maximum dose was significantly associated with increased CAC in LAD (OR = 1.04, p = 0.02), but this association was only marginally significant ( p = 0.07) in multivariate analysis. 4.

TDC 91.5%), though the difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

The correlation between YRM and PYM was only marginally significant ( r = .17, p < .07), avoiding the problems relative to collinearity.

(The tideflat model was only marginally significant when an outlier was removed ( R 2 adj = 0.28, P = 0.07, n = 10)).

Post-hoc analyses showed that Japanese books had significantly more challenge events than Indonesian books ( M Japanese = 4.75, SD = 2.49; M Indonesian = 2.6, SD = 1.76, p = 0.035) and that American books had a greater number of challenge events than Indonesian books, although the difference was only marginally significant ( M American = 4.5, SD = 3.46, p = 0.07).

The hazard ratio for poor health is somewhat larger among women, but the difference is only marginally significant (p = .07 for a two-tailed Wald test), which is consistent with recent research [42] .

It is worth noting, however, that using a slightly altered model–which treats APOE as a nominal or categorical ( carrier / non - carrier ) variable–in order to re-analyze a sub-set of this data which excludes these two ε2 subjects: 1) does not significantly alter the ε4 effects seen, and 2) still generates results suggestive of a protective morphometric main effect of a single ε2 allele (an effect size of +505.84 mm 3 , equivalent to a nearly 13% increase in hippocampal volume; Cohen’s d = 0.14, effect size r = 0.68)–though, this result is only marginally significant ( p = 0.07) (see Table 8 for a full summary of the results for this modified model).

Due to cortisol’s known circadian rhythm, the cortisol levels at T 1 were estimated to be lower for the Stress-post-Craving HC ( b = −21.77, t (73) = −2.66, p < 0.01) and CU (only marginally significant: b = −14.39, t (73) = −1.84, p = 0.070).

The relationship between BG susceptibility and attention showed a curvilinear trend: although the individual polynomial terms were only marginally significant (linear: t = 1.83, p = 0.07; quadratic: t = −1.71, p = 0.09), the overall nonlinear model reached significance ( F 3,326 = 3.19, p = 0.02), indicating that both low and high BG susceptibility values were associated with reduced attention performance.

However, under kernel approach, the relationship between the proportion of species pairs with high trait overlap with species richness was only marginally significant for leaf size (r 2 = 0.14, p-value = 0.07 for leaf size, S6E Fig ) and none relationship was observed for SLA ( S6F Fig ).

The significant interaction between congruency and prime type reflected the congruency effect being significant for spoken words, t (35) = 3.48, p < .005, but only marginally significant for naturalistic sounds, t (35) = 1.88, p = .07.

However, presence of H3K27M-mutation appeared as the only marginally significant risk factor for long-term CNS dissemination on multivariate analysis (HR = 2.09, 95% CI: 0.94-4.64, P = .07).

reflex response inhibition by a weak sensory event) attenuated amphetamine-induced pre-pulse impairment ( F (1, 25) = 6.38, p = 0.018, post hoc p < 0.05), but this effect was only marginally significant at 30 and 60 mg/kg doses ( F (3, 67) = 4.09, p = 0.07, post hoc p < 0.05) (Pedrazzi et al. 2015 ).

Severe preoperative LAVVR and AV valve abnormalities were only marginally significant ( P =0.07 and 0.19, respectively) ( Table 3 ).

The interaction was only marginally significant, F (4, 76)=2.20, p =.07, η p 2 =.10.

Pyrethroid resistance seemed to modify feeding success, and the OR of a susceptible triatomine having a successful feeding was 0.15 (95% CI 0.01–0.78), although this result was only marginally significant ( P = 0.07; Table 1 , Additional File 1 , Fig.