Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = .071.4× alphagold
We observed no main effect of expectedness status, F(1, 20) = 2.80, p = .11, η 2 = .12, no main effect of semantic category, F(1, 20) = 1.93, p = .18, η 2 = .09, and a marginally significant expectedness status by semantic category interaction, F(1, 20) = 3.70, p = .07, η 2 = .16; this interaction was characterized by longer reaction times for standard emotional words (mean = 1274, SE = 48) relative to same-list unexpected neutral words (mean = 1185 SE = 40, p<01), or relative to standard neutral words (mean = 1194, SE = 48, p<.01) and same-list unexpected emotional words (mean = 1185 SE = 47, p<.05).
marginally non-significantp = 0.071.4× alpha
Bees having ingested NaCl 3 M and quinine 100 mM exhibited highest and similar mortality levels ( Z = 0.63, NS ) so that their probability of survival decreased dramatically following ingestion; feeding of water induced only a slight but not significant increase of mortality at the end of the experiment probably due to exhaustion (240 min); salicine 100 mM induced intermediate mortality levels and comparison to the water group was marginally non-significant ( Z = 1.78, p = 0.07).
approached significancep = .071.4× alpha
In addition, the results of the fully adjusted model (including age, sex, BMI and education as covariates) with sitting time and physical activity as predictors of total MTL thickness indicate that the only predictor that approached significance was time spent sitting (β = -0.02, p = .07); as with the reduced model, physical activity was not significant (β = 0.01, p = .8).
near-significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Latency to Disengage First Gaze away from Aggressive Faces is Faster following the Health Check GLMM performed on the mean latency to disengage gaze from aggressive and neutral faces revealed a significant main effect of testing condition ( F 1,54 = 7.07, p = 0.01) and a near-significant interaction of face x condition ( F 1,54 = 3.41, p = 0.07: Figure 2B ).
borderline significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Associations between EDS, future CHD or stroke evaluated separately were significant after adjustment in model 2 (HR = 1.36 95%CI = [1.02–1.80], HR = 1.52 95%CI = [1.00–2.34], respectively) and borderline significant after adjustment in model 3 (HR = 1.30 95%CI = [0.98–1.73] p = 0.07, HR = 1.48 95%CI = [0.96–2.28] p = 0.08, respectively).