“only marginally significant”

PLHIV from households in the richer wealth quintile tended to be more likely to be aware of their serostatus, with an association that was significant in bivariate analysis (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35–0.97) but only marginally significant in multivariable analysis (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35–1.07, p = 0.08).

This effect was significant for all age groups (all p s < .05): accuracy was significantly lower for the FB trials than for the TB trials and the control trials (which included MC and filler trials) in all age groups (all p s < .05), except in the 35–49 group for which the difference between the FB trials and the TB trials was only marginally significant ( p = .08).

Interestingly, seedling productivity was negatively correlated with the N deposition rate at the field sites, but this effect was only marginally significant ( r = -53, p = 0.08; Supplementary Fig. 9 ).

However, the difference between patients with TBD and controls was only marginally significant following false-discovery rate correction (3.9% ± 8.5% of CD3 + vs 7.4% ± 8.2% of CD3 + in controls; P = .080).

The exception to this was the comparison of the “damage my lungs” item for the Straw City ad viewing condition, compared to the control condition, which was only marginally significant ( p = .08) but in the same direction as the other comparisons.

Interestingly, this interaction was significant when comparing the SYNCH1PP condition (preserved BSC) with the ASYNCH3PP condition (strongly manipulated BSC), while the interaction between SYNCH1PP and ASYNCH1PP was only marginally significant (p = 0.08).

In contrast, boys scored slightly higher ( M = 114.85, SD = 12.81) than did girls ( M = 107.85, SD = 13.82) in the early adolescent group; however, this difference was only marginally significant [ t (45) = 1.77, p = 0.08].

5 C, top panel, Spearman rank correlation r =0.5480), a finding that, despite being only marginally significant ( P =0.08), matched the previous results obtained in AC16 cells fairly closely.

Last, the share of participants who chose the taller person in the photograph when asked about knowledge differed significantly from 50% for children (girls and boys, p<0.001 in both), but only marginally significant for adults (women, p = 0.08; men, p = 0.09).

Among those smoking 20 or more cpd, the association was only marginally significant ( P = 0.08).

The three-way interaction involving intention, action type, and plane compatibility was only marginally significant, F (1, 18) = 3.44, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.16.

When calculated with the Fisher exact test, the difference between the first year and subsequent years was only marginally significant ( P =.08) due to the small sample size.

However, only marginally significant differences were found for the phylogenetic membership (AMOVA on the unweighted UniFrac distance, P =0.08, Supplementary Fig. 6 ).

Harmaline and ketamine did not affect Lingo-1 expression Although harmaline exposure resulted in a relative increase in Lingo-1 expression (F (3, 12)=4.8, p=0.02), this elevation was only marginally significant compared to the control group (p=0.08, Fig. 7 ).

Follow-up t- tests indicated that memory bias values for negative items ( M = .63) were significantly different from those for positive items ( M = -1.04) and neutral items ( M = -1.32), t (37) ≥ 9.63, p < .001, η 2 ≥ .71, but the difference between positive and neutral was only marginally significant, t (37) = 1.82, p = .08.

CT (126 mg kg ‐1 ), but this difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for 2015 and not significant in 2016 (Table 2 ).

There was a significant main effect of climate treatment on the total intercellular space as both warming and shading increased the total intercellular space by 12 and 11 %, respectively, compared with the control treatment, but this difference was only marginally significant ( Table 2 ; P = 0.08 for control versus warmed and P = 0.1 for control versus shaded treatment comparisons by the Bonferroni test).

However, after adjusting for UACR reduction, the direct effect remained only marginally significant (β = 5.88; 95% CI: –0.50 to 10.74; P = 0.080), and the path from UACR reduction to eGFR change was not significant (β = 0.00; 95% CI: –0.04 to 0.04; P = 0.871).

sample, r = 0.13, ns ( n = 64), and only marginally significant for the Filipino sample, r = 0.22, p = 0.08 ( n = 62).

Of those previously undiagnosed, 49.6% (95% CI 43.3 to 56.0) had a viral load ≥100,000 copies/mL, a figure higher than among those who were diagnosed but not on ART (40.1%, 95% CI 32.5 to 48.3), although the difference in distribution between those two categories was only marginally significant ( p =0.08).

Break in available nitrate panel is from 6 to 15 μg N g soil −1 and the two asterisks in panel B indicate that the pairwise comparisons between letters b and c are only marginally significant, p < 0.08).

Those who used more products with antimicrobials had less prudent attitudes (-2.0%), although this was only marginally significant in the full model (p = 0.08, see Table 3 in S1 Text ).

However, self‐efficacy was only marginally significant [OR: 1.15 (0.98–1.33), P = 0.08].

Women who delivered in a facility had a 1.8 times higher hazard than women who delivered at home, but the difference is only marginally significant ( p = .08).

However, the significance level was not sufficient enough for any of them and only marginally significant for ORAC results correlated to fucoxanthin ( p = 0.08), suggesting that the antioxidant activity is the response of a mixture of compounds and their different antioxidant modes of action. 3.