Excerpts

2C ), there was only a trend towards significance between stressed and control mice in the average level of post-tetanic potentiation (control 144.3±4.6% vs stress 157.0±4.6%; p = 0.07).

When analysing which of the axial (λ1 eigenvalues) or radial diffusivity (λ2, λ3 eigenvalues) measures was contributing to the main effect of the group for the FA in the UF, we found borderline significant effects for both variables (P = 0.07 for λ1 and P = 0.09 for λ3) ( Tables S1 , S2 , S3 , S4 , S5 , S6 ).

Regarding the normal karyotype AML subgroup only a negative trend for the DNMT3B expression on EFS and OS (p = 0.07) was detected.

This time, the main effect of Arousal just failed to reach significance ( F (2,41) = 2.80, p = .07, η p 2 = .12, MSE = 0.003).

The same correlations were computed at the level of individual pianists ( n = 12); these correlations approached significance for the timing variability measures ( r = –.540, p = .070) and reached significance for tone intensity CV’s ( r = –.58, p <.05).

Group differences in the accuracy of alerting approached significance ( t (14) = 1.97, p = 0.07), while orienting ( t (14) = 0.62, p = 0.55) and executive control ( t (14) = 0.10, p = 0.92) did not differ statistically (see Table 2 ).

As it is shown in Figure 1 , apoptosis markers were significantly increased in serum samples from both pediatric and adult patients with CHC compared to healthy subjects, except for sFas levels in CHC pediatric patient samples which only showed a trend of association (p = 0.07).

We found that a high dose (1 mg/kg body wt) of TSA was of borderline significance (t-test, p = 0.07) in inhibiting tumor growth in A549 tumor-bearing nude mice, whereas a low dose (0.5 mg/kg body wt) of TSA and quercetin alone had no effect (t-test, p> 0.05).

Nevertheless, in all but one of the non-breeders the observed exclusive HR was larger than the corresponding exclusive HR computed with the coordinate pairs of the outside-nest fixes of the four non-breeders randomly permutated, approaching significance in M268 ( p = 0.07).

A similar pattern was observed for the percentage open arm entries with significant effects of Age (F(1,85) = 11.20,P<0.01) and Sex (F(1,85) = 3.97, P<0.05) as well as a strong trend for prenatal treatment (F(1,85) = 3.18, P = 0.07) as shown in Figure 1b .

It is worth noting, however, that using a slightly altered model–which treats APOE as a nominal or categorical ( carrier / non - carrier ) variable–in order to re-analyze a sub-set of this data which excludes these two ε2 subjects: 1) does not significantly alter the ε4 effects seen, and 2) still generates results suggestive of a protective morphometric main effect of a single ε2 allele (an effect size of +505.84 mm 3 , equivalent to a nearly 13% increase in hippocampal volume; Cohen’s d = 0.14, effect size r = 0.68)–though, this result is only marginally significant ( p = 0.07) (see Table 8 for a full summary of the results for this modified model).

Proportional prey selection did not differ significantly between seasons neither for males (Friedman χ 2 early dry-late dry = 10.17, df = 7, p = 0.18; Friedman χ 2 early dry-wet = 9.57, df = 7, p = 0.21; Friedman χ 2 late dry-wet = 11.70, df = 7, p = 0.11), nor for females even though results approached significance level (Friedman χ 2 early dry-late dry = 12.95, df = 7, p = 0.07; Friedman χ 2 early dry-wet = 11.67, df = 7, p = 0.11; Friedman χ 2 late dry-wet = 12.45, df = 7, p = 0.08).

This possibility is supported by the p-values of the statistical test between the non-target and the standard conditions during the 0 to 100 ms time window in the left MFG and the left IPS, both of which were marginally significant ( p = 0.07 and p = 0.10, respectively).

Moreover, this difference (10 Hz-fit>5 Hz-fit) even approached significance (t[17] = 1.52, P = 0.07) for (inherently suboptimal) cueing at the alpha-subharmonic frequency of 5.3 Hz.

Once amplified cases were segregated from other cases of gene gain, non-amplified gene increases ( TOP1 /CEN-2≥1.5 and TOP1/CEN-20<2.0) showed a trend towards shorter TTR (univariate HR: 1.57, p = 0.07).

The repeated measures ANOVA showed that SAR did not affect soil pH value in the PF ( p = 0.997), but it significantly reduced soil pH value in the BF ( p = 0.01) and the reduction was marginally significant in the MF ( p = 0.07).

The main effect of interval fell short of significance, F (1, 15) = 3.66, p >.07, as well as the Interval×Block interaction, F (2, 30) = 3.19, p >.07.

As above, we also entered data into a 2×2 repeated measures ANOVA, which confirmed no overall effect of drug administration (F 1,9 = 0.03, p = 0.87), although the order effect again approached significance (F 1,9 = 3.83, p = 0.07), with an average −8.1+/−17.9% change in percentage gambling from week 1 to week 2.

Both male and female Bdnf +/− showed a trend toward increased path length (p = 0.07, for both genders).

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).

For exploration we also tested interaction of genotype with other terms, which yield borderline significance for Genotype by Sex interaction with nematodes (p = 0.07).

They also had marginally significant (both p<0.07) increased odds of experiencing insomnia and Whooley-screened depression ( Table 4 ).

The SMD for anxiety was small overall (−0.20, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.02), showing a borderline significant trend in favor of the experimental group (Z = 1.82; p = 0.07) (see Figure 6 ).

Furthermore, 58% of women and 48% of men indicated that their former partner initiated the breakup; this gender difference approached significance, x 2 (1, N = 408) = 3.19, p = .07.

Equivalent analyses yielded only a marginally significant interaction for line length, F (1, 84) = 3.26, MSE = .47, p = .07 , η p 2 = .04, and a non-significant interaction for line spacing, F < 1.