Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginal significancep = 0.0651.3× alphagold
In fact, a one-way RM ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction revealed a significant difference for AI within prism distortions (F (1.86, 20.45) = 5.091, p = 0.018; η 2 p = 0.316; 1-β = 0.74, n = 14 to achieve 1-β = 0.8; post hoc NK test: 0° vs 15°, p = 0.004, and 5° vs 15°, p = 0.024) and only a marginal significance for MT within prism distorsions (F (2.19, 24.06) = 2.987, p = 0.065; η 2 p = 0.214; 1-β = 0.55, n = 19 to achieve 1-β = 0.8, post hoc NK test: 0° vs 15°, p = 0.05).
a trend towards significancep = 0.0651.3× alpha
Further 2×2 ANOVAs performed on synapse density from the other spines categories failed to show an effect of plannexin or water maze training or their interaction [but note that a trend towards significance was found for plannexin treatment to reduce thin synapses (F 1,12 = 4.57, p = 0.065)].
almost significantlyp = 0.0651.3× alpha
The minor allele of rs9402571, which was found to associate with a higher insulin secretion in the screening (TUEF) as well as the replication (EUGENE2) populations, associated almost significantly (p = 0.065; adjusted for age, family history of diabetes, and BMI) with a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio: 0.845; 95%CI: 0.706–1.011), comparing the 659 diabetic patients with the non-diabetic 3798 METSIM participants.
There was a marginally statistically significant effect of both trait rumination F (1, 58) = 3.54, p = .065, η p 2 = . 06 and state rumination F (1, 58) = 3.22, p = .078. η p 2 = . 05 on TRI scores, but no effect of either trait rumination F (1, 58) = 4, p = .409, η p 2 = . 01 or state rumination F (1, 58) =, p = .102, η p 2 = . 05 on TUT scores.
marginally significantp = .0651.3× alphagold
Multivariate analysis revealed a significant main effect of probe height (F 5,8 = 33.20, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .95) and a marginally significant interaction between probe height and group (F 5, 8 = 3.03, p = .065, partial eta 2 = .67), suggesting that both groups exhibited changes in escape latency as a function of probe height ( Fig 2 ).
marginally non-significantP = 0.0651.3× alpha
There was marginally non-significant difference in the amplitude of buoyant force fluctuations between the first and the second dipping trial ( F 1,25 = 3.72, P = 0.065 Table 1 ) and non- significant two- or three-way interaction between sex and age on the amplitude of the force fluctuations between the two dipping trials.