marginally significantp = 0.060
577, t (9) = 4.98, p = 0.0008), while individuals in Subgroup 2 showed a small, marginally significant (617 vs. 608, t (19) = 2.15, p = 0.060).
577, t (9) = 4.98, p = 0.0008), while individuals in Subgroup 2 showed a small, marginally significant (617 vs. 608, t (19) = 2.15, p = 0.060).