Excerpts

2.39 μg/dL), though this difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.08) [ 79 ].

For alcohol consumption during pregnancy, a borderline significant difference ( p = 0.08) among the regions was found, possibly explained by only one person’s (from the North region) consumption of >2–3 times a month.A significant difference was found among the regions for parity, defined as a full-term pregnancy, with a higher median in the East region.

Grade effect: For the overt victimization, univariate ANOVA indicated that the main effect of grade was marginally significant (F (1,1040) = 2.27, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.007).

A strong association was also observed between adolescents’ BMI and the BMI of the mother ( p = 0.004), but the association was only of borderline significance with the BMI of the father ( p = 0.08).

Analysis of change in PM alone showed a benefit to the intervention group (three studies, N = 340, SMD = −0.33, CI: [−0.62, −0.05], p = 0.02), while analysis of change in air nicotine alone showed a trend towards a benefit to the intervention group (air nicotine change: four studies, N = 421, p = 0.08).

After adjustment for baseline scores, this difference in recovery between the conditions, as indicated by the interaction between scene type (green, built) and block (3, 5) on RSA, was marginally significant, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.1.

A difference was found for the average amount of steps per day, with boys taking more steps compared to girls on weekdays ( p < 0.001) and weekend days (borderline significant, p = 0.08).

control) on specific fears showed a marginally significant effect of risk communication; F (2, 703) = 2.48, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.007, d = 0.17.

Almost significant group by time interactions were observed for body mass ( p = 0.08, ES = 0.23) and body mass index ( p = 0.054, ES = 0.27).

Associations between total psychiatric problem scores and cannabis use intention in youth approached significance ( p = 0.08); cannabis use intention associations with mean age, perceived risk for harm, and perceived health benefit related to youth cannabis use were not significant. 3.6.

Nurses with a bachelor’s degree placed more importance on personal factors contributing to their decisions regarding PPE use when compared with nurses who held a master’s degree, although this difference was not found to be highly significant ( p = 0.08).

In these multivariable logistic regressions, gender was near significance ( p = 0.08) in Rishon LeZion and sedentary behavior was near significance ( p = 0.09) in Haifa (values not presented), suggesting boys had a higher chance of being overweight and obese in Rishon LeZion and the sedentary had a higher chance of being overweight and obese in Haifa. 4.

Marital status was retained despite its borderline significance ( p = 0.08) due to its theoretical relevance to health-related behaviors.

Secondhand smoke exposure showed marginal significance with increased neighborhood traffic ( p = 0.08), and children with any household pet (dog and/or cat) were less likely to be exposed to neighborhood traffic ( p = 0.02) but after adjusting for demographics and family history of asthma this was no longer statistically significant.

More standing time during leisure was associated with increased nocturnal HRV, but only ln LF was close to being statistically significant ( p = 0.08).

Concerning avoidance behavior, there was only a marginally significant, but inconclusive effect of health anxiety during COVID-19 on avoidance behavior in relation to other diseases ( b = 0.03, 99% CI [−0.01, 0.06], p = 0.08).

Duration of smoking and current smoking had a positive association with the loneliness score but testing for correlations between the two groups approached significance ( p = 0.08 and p = 0.09, respectively).

They did however find a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.081), which might be a chance finding, between walkability and talking with neighbours for the prediction of sedentary time.

The repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that the effect of time was not statistically significant (Wilks’ λ = 0.998, F (1,166) = 0.338, p = 0.562, η p 2 = 0.002); nevertheless, a significant effect of the time × group interaction emerged (Wilks’ λ = 0.946, F (1,166) = 9.459, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.05): there was a significant difference over time (i.e., increasing) for the experimental group (Wilks’ λ = 0.929, F (1,104) = 7.922, p = 0.006, η p 2 = 0.07) and a near-significant difference over time (i.e., decreasing) for the control group (Wilks’ λ = 0.952, F (1,62) = 3.152, p = 0.081, η p 2 = 0.05).

Whether mothers thought that people helped each other out was associated with reduced hazards of stopping exclusive breastfeeding in the constant effects models, approaching significance once SES was controlled for (M2 HR 0.65, p = 0.081).

However, the differences among the job categories was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.081).

PM Concentrations and Their Correlations In the comparison of PM 10 , PM 2.5–10 , and PM 2.5 concentrations among lag days, PM 10 and PM 2.5–10 concentrations were significantly different among lag days for both original and log-transformed concentrations ( p < 0.05 for all), while PM 2.5 concentrations were not significantly different among lag days; although, original values showed marginal significance ( p = 0.0812) ( Figure 1 ).

Although the CyPA expression in the placenta of neonates with an APGAR score of <7 at 1 min was 100% (9/9) compared to only 69.2% (18/26) in APGAR >7, it was not quite statistically significant ( p = 0.0815). 3.5.

The total therapy time in 6 weeks showed a trend influence in IL-6 med and IL-6 min models (IL-6 med p = 0.082; IL-6 min p = 0.099) ( Table 4 , for estimates, see Tables S7–S10 ). 3.7.

The apparent association increased post-intervention for both contaminants, and the association became significant for Pb (X 2 of 9.75 and p = 0.002), but the association for A S was not quite significant (X 2 of 4.61 and p = 0.082).