Excerpts

The remaining pairwise comparisons did not yield significant results, although the comparison between the second and fourth profile also approached significance ( d = 1.03, p = 0.071).

They also show an almost significant relationship with the value Achievement ( p = 0.071), giving priority to decisions linked to obtaining personal benefit through rational decision-making processes.

When both direct and indirect effects are considered, the total effect of resilience on distress is negative but only marginally significant (β = –0.081, p = 0.072), suggesting that resilience alleviates distress mainly through its positive relationship with hope rather than by a strong direct impact.

The incidence of complications was higher in the B group (50%), compared to the other ABO (31.2%) with a marginally non-significant difference ( p = 0.072).

A partially different profile emerged from the SDQ filled in by the fathers, for which the multivariate effect of Group was only marginally significant, F (5, 44) = 2.193, p = 0.072, η 2 = 0.200.

Over the course from pre- to retention test, a statistical trend with weak effect size can be observed in the total test ( p = 0.072, r = 0.235). 3.2.

Corexit 9527 caused significant increases of pleural surface tumor count ( p = 0.026), and tumor cell number ( p = 0.042) and a marginally significant increase of tumor burden ( p = 0.073) as compared with the control.

In the contingency table analysis ( Table 2 ), only two variables other than “asthma severity” approached significance at the 5% level: (1) asthma biologic prescription ( p = 0.074), which serves as surrogate for asthma severity; and (2) no-shows for scheduled clinic visits ( p = 0.0724).

Follow up tests revealed that, while the control group did not change over time from pre to post and from post to retention, the experimental group showed a significant increase in the test from pre to post ( p < 0.001) and from pre to retention ( p < 0.001), while no significant differences were found from post to retention, although there was a trend toward significance ( p = 0.074).

However, Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed no differences between specific education levels, except for a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.074) in the ranking of Idea 8 ( popular people ) between secondary education (HAVO, n = 23, M = 5.74) and university students ( n = 167, M = 4.40). 4.

Post hoc comparison showed that VO 2max was significantly lower for TR than that obtained during 30-15 IFT measured with a gas analyzer i.e., IFT K4 (PC = 6.1%, p = 0.007), but had only a trend towards significance when compared to the predicted value from the IFT result (PC = 4.4%, p = 0.074).

In the same cluster, however, negative associations were detected between the eosinophil numbers and FACED, EFACED, BSI, hospitalizations and almost significantly with the exacerbations ( p = 0.076, Figure 4 B).

However, the results were at the limit of significance for birth in a country with high lead use ( p = 0.076) and living close to an industrial site ( p = 0.102).

Arousal and valence were correlated ( r = 0.18, p < 0.001), but surprisingly, arousal did not correlate with any other variables ( p s > 0.248), however the association between arousal and the probability of conception was marginally significant ( r = 0.05, p = 0.076).

The simple slope [ 74 ] of the regression of workplace friendships onto job loss insecurity under high negative gossip was only marginally significant (simple slope = −0.20, t = 1.78, p = 0.076).

No statistically significant influences for imagery type were found, although imagery of younger women was only marginally non-significant ( b = 0.008, p = 0.076).

The main effect of brain regions was also significant, F (2,124) = 132.134, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.681, as P2 amplitudes were greater in central ( M = 8.786 μV, SE = 0.391) than centro-parietal area ( M = 7.072 μV, SE = 0.392).The three-way interaction was marginally significant, F (2,124) = 2.639, p = 0.077, η p 2 = 0.041.

Furthermore, a marginally significant difference in the number of MR-1 cells was observed among diphenyl Pt- thiosemicarbazone complex treatment groups (p = 0.077), and an increasing trend in the number of cells was noted from ~5.0 × 10 8 cells (methanol control group) to ~5.8 × 10 8 cells (20ppm).

For the SIS-Total score, a trend in difference between the two groups was observed (F(1,15) = 3.9, p = 0.068) and the pairwise comparison showed a trend for greater improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group at both T1 (mean difference = 5.7, F(1,20.2) = 3.5, p = 0.077) and T2 (mean difference = 5.3, F(1,20.2) = 3.1, p = 0.094), although none of them were statistically significant.

Correlation tests also revealed a relatively low correlation of 0.28 between research impact and PBR and a weakly significant correlation ( p < 0.077) of 0.14 between research impact and PBR_FTEs.

Specifically, feeling connected to nature attenuated the association between complicated grief and anxiety, though this moderation only approached conventional levels of significance, b = −0.61, SE = 0.34, t (148) = −1.78, p = 0.077, 95% CI [−1.29, 0.07] (see Figure 3 ).

The proportion of cases with incision within 30 min increased from 14.3% at baseline to 10.7% at midline and 37.5% at endline, with marginal significance between baseline and endline ( p = 0.077).

Although the main effect of simulated Environment was not significant ( p = 0.21), the interaction was marginally significant ( p = 0.077).

The effect of working at a different facility with different codes, therefore, was only marginally significant (F = 2.57; d.f. = 2, 301; p = 0.078).

Results did not show significant main effects ( p > 0.05), but a trend towards significance of the stimulation condition (F(2,38) = 3.026, p = 0.078, partial η 2 = 0.137), with lower accuracy in the left (mean = 0.83; SEM = 0.033) than in the right (mean = 0.89; SEM = 0.023) stimulation condition and sham (mean = 0.88; SEM = 0.031), as well as a significance trend for hand view (F(1,19) = 3.736, p = 0.068, partial η 2 = 0.164), with lower accuracy for palm (mean = 0.84; SEM = 0.03) than dorsum (mean = 0.89; SEM = 0.028).