Excerpts

There was a marginally non-significant trend that the interaction term Treatment x Maternal body condition predicted offspring sex ratio (Pri: z = 1.86, P = 0.06, Sec: z = 1.80, P = 0.07).

0.45±0.03 or control, Mann Whitney U, p<0.0001), and a nonsignificant trend towards higher PPAR γ gene expression (0.58±0.10 for PAH vs. 0.47±0.11 for control, p = 0.06), and lower PPAR γ methylation (36.4±6.3% for PAH vs. 37.8±14.9% for control, p = 0.07, Mann Whitney U for all comparisons).

The difference in accuracy was at least marginally statistically significant (p < 0.06).

The difference in prevalence of haplogroup J was only borderline significant when the HCM group was compared with the population controls, 3.3% vs. 9.1% (p = 0.06) ( Table 5 ) yielding an, OR = 0.34, CI = [0.07-1.03]) ( Table 6 ).

Furthermore the Face x Sentence x Age interaction was marginally significant ( p = .06, cf. the blue bars in Fig. 6 ): In the negative sentence conditions, the negative (vs. positive) face did not appear to affect accuracy in the young group ( M = .88, SE = 0.03 vs.

The high-affinity receptor for BDNF, TrkB, showed a trend to elevation in PBT2-treated Tg2576 mice (+91%, p = 0.06).

Smoking also showed a trend toward association with polymicrobial CLABSI (IR 2.85; 95% CI 0.95–8.48, p = 0.06) ( S4 Table ).

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.

The 3-way interaction between age, duration and gender nevertheless just failed to reach significance for the WR, F (2, 174) = 2.89, p = .06.

There was a tendency toward significance for RFD ( F = 2.8; p = 0.06) and peak torque ( F = 2.4; p = 0.09) during knee extension MVC.

The three-way interaction between sex, breeding stage and status on body condition was borderline significant (χ 2 4 = 9.05, P = 0.06).

Although not quite significant (p = 0.06), cricket-fed spiders had the lowest MiSp relative to actin ( Fig 2D ).

For Theravada meditation, we observed a marginally significant main effect of Condition (Rest, Kasina, Vipassana): F(2,18) = 3.2, p = 0.06.

College education was significant at the trend level ( p = 0.06) only when age and age 2 were included as covariates.

While receiving anodal stimulation over the rVLPFC, the difference in mood rating score between social excluded participants (M exclusion&anodal = 3.93, SD exclusion&anodal = 0.38) and included participants (M inclusion&anodal = 4.14, SD inclusion&anodal = 0.35) was marginally significant (F (1, 124) = 3.62, p = 0.06).

This was somewhat reflected in the BAL which showed a trend toward increased lung macrophages 24 h after LPAL (p = 0.06).

However, there was weak evidence of a decreasing trend in annual incidence among AGYW aged 15–20 years from 2011 to 2015 (RR for linear trend from one year to the next = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.87–1.00, p = 0.06; S1 Table and S1 Fig ).

The results show a positive trend ( β = 0.16, p = .06) for the VAE bot condition, indicating weak accuracy improvement due to the presence of the VAE bot, and a significant interaction between treatment and wind condition ( β = −0.26, p = 0.03), suggesting that the accuracy improvement was negatively affected by being assigned to a wind predictor (arguably the most difficult predictor-outcome relationship to learn).

Bonferroni adjustment found that the AD and NPC groups were significantly different from each other ( p = 0.003), but the difference between AD and ND-HPC groups fell just short of significance ( p = 0.06) for the BFI z-score.

After vaccination, 12/17 (70.6%) subjects showed an increasing trend in the frequencies of Treg (from 0.74% to 1.2%; P = 0.06) with the median increase of 30% ( Fig. 4 ).

However, further pair-wise t-tests for the congruency effect per electrode site indicated that the congruency effect was only marginally significant at electrode sites PO6 (t(17) = 2.01, p = 0.06) and PO8 (t(17) = 1.78, p = 0.09).

Results Line 196-197: Authors state: “except for inter-limb asymmetry during the re-test, which was borderline significant (Table 1).” What is borderline significant (p=0.06 or p=0.1 or p=0.2???).

However, the number of studies that reported an adequate sequence generation evidenced a nonsignificant trend (38.6% and 77.8%, Fisher’s Exact test, p = .06) and the number of studies that reported that an independent party conducted the randomization was significantly smaller among the published studies (25.0%) than among the unpublished studies (77.8%; Fisher’s Exact test, p = .005).

r = .125 was, however, marginally significant ( p = .06) and in the predicted direction.

However, Egger’s regression tests were borderline significant for results regarding both the amplitude ( p = 0.06) and latency of the N100 component ( p = 0.10) (Section 5 in S1 Appendix ).