Excerpts

The exception was the age difference between the two groups, which was close to being statistically significant (p = 0.06).

A main effect of group ( F (1,120) = 15.56, p < 0.001), and an almost significant main effect of time ( F (2,120) = 2.88, p = 0.06) also emerged.

ANOVA revealed no group differences (LCR, HCR, saline) for the cell surface (p = 0.12), but a strong trend for differences in total GluA1 in dSTR (p = 0.06).

Hence, the group by tract interaction remained unchanged, F(1,23) = 8.67, P<0.01, while the effect of group for the UF remained significant, F(1,22) = 5.11, P = 0.03, although it was of borderline significance (P = 0.06) when correcting for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.

The results showed a trend towards reduced lipid peroxidation (3.5±2.4% vs 5.6±3.7%, p = 0.06, HMGB1 vs control) while superoxide production was significantly reduced in the HMGB1 group compared with control (219±32 units/mm 2 vs 1185±97 units/mm 2 , respectively, p<0.0001) ( Fig 8 ).

After exposure to I/R, ART-treated control hearts showed a trend towards increased nitrosative stress (increased nitrotyrosine expression; p = 0.06); however, no changes were observed in the ART exposed obese group.

The HE-RFI group showed marginally significant higher values for NDF and NFC digestibility (g/kg), ( P = 0.06 and 0.08, respectively).

This indicates that the variable ‘preference for extension of life over QoL’ serves as a partial mediator for the effects of ‘willingness to be dependent’ on ‘EoL care preferences in the Advanced Dementia scenario.’ Additionally, the indirect effect of ‘willingness to be dependent’ on ‘EoL preference in the Physical Disability scenario’ approached significance (β = 0.10, p = 0.06).

The excursion of the upper arm increased, approaching significance (297→342 mm, p = 0.06).

Positive work approached significance (p = 0.06) and peak force per push (0.40) did not change significantly between the pre- and the post-test.

For cerebellar white matter volume (mean ± SD, 34.0±4.1) the association with anxiety score was not significant, r(33) = −0.23, p = 0.19, whereas the association with depression score reached borderline significance, r(33) = −0.32, p = 0.06.

This split into a significant decrease in courtship directed to females (t 3 = 5.54, p = 0.01) and a marginally non-significant decrease in courtship directed to other males (t 3 = 3.07, p = 0.06, table 2 ).

However, the pattern of results was the same as in the previous analysis, with only electrode P3 showing a positive trend instead of a significant difference [t(13) = 2.05, p = .06].

However, the interaction between instruction and stimulation was only marginally significant, F (1,19) = 3.99, p = .06, MSE = 1.24, η p 2 = .17.

In addition, the association between intelligence and telomere length at T1 approached significance (p = .06).

However, in the diet plus exercise group, reduction in the nocturnal symptoms frequency was borderline significant (p = 0.06) and also clinically significant.

The interaction between agency and context nearly reached significance (F(2,19) = 3.8, p<.06).

MG velocity gain (p = 0.004*) decreased, and displacement gain had a decreasing trend (p = 0.06) that was not statistically significant ( Figure 9 , Reversal).

For infants tested in Paris, the Stimulus Type X Habituation type interaction was marginally significant (F(1,30) = 3.53, p = 0.06), as infants habituated to scale-invariant sounds looked significantly longer to switch than to same trials (Scheffé post hoc: p = 0.02), but infants habituated to variable-scale sounds did not differ in their looks to the two trial types (Scheffé post hoc: p = 0.81).

The correlation between FA values and NfL in the left ATR, the right UF and in the left dCin was only marginally significant [lATR: β = -0.02, p = 0.06; rUF: β = -0.04, p = 0.06; ldCin: β = -0.03, p = 0.05].

2B ), with only the first three weeks showing marginal significance (p = 0.06, p = 0.05, p = 0.05, respectively) at genus level ( S1 Table ).

CitH3 was only significantly higher at baseline, day 2 and day 5 (p < 0.04) and just missed significance on day 1 (p = 0.06).

The analysis revealed a significant agency×context×ROI interaction for the first onset, (F(2,19) = 5.14, p<.05), and a marginally significant agency×context×ROI interaction for the second onset (F(2,19) = 3.85, p = .06).

Further, exploratory analyses of ‘diagnosis by genotype by sex’ interaction was found to be significant for left [F = 5.6; p = 0.02] but only showed a trend towards significance for right [F = 3.6; p = 0.06] hippocampal volumes.

However, correlation between nitrate and ( nirS + nirK )/( nosZ I + nosZ II ) was only weakly significant (p = 0.06) ( Table 3 ).