Excerpts

Nevertheless, a marginally significant effect of social influence was found also in the Het Group ( β = 0.02 , χ 2 (1) = 3.78, P = 0.052).

The differences in the incidence of pharyngeal complications at different time points between and within groups were marginally significant ( P = 0.052 and 0.060, respectively).

The usual frequency of working from home was a marginally significant cross-level moderator of the path between self-goal setting and work engagement (estimate = ˗0.005, SD = 0.003, p = 0.052), and a significant cross-level moderator of the path between self-reward and work engagement (estimate = ˗0.010, SD = 0.003, p < 0.001), self-punishment and work engagement (estimate = ˗0.005, SD = 0.003, p < 0.05), and visualization of successful performance and work engagement (estimate = ˗0.008, SD = 0.003, p < 0.01).

However, since there was a statistical trend ( p = 0.052 in the contralateral hand), it cannot be concluded at this point that scaling dysfunction is entirely independent of pain occurrence in MSA.

Subordinate lions were 4.32 times more likely to maintain possession of the resource post-oxytocin compared to control, but this difference was only marginally significant (Table 1 ; log odds: 1.46 ± 0.75, p = 0.052).

The results showed that the main effects of group ( F 1, 56 = 1.83, p = 0.181) and session ( F 1, 44 = 1.42, p = 0.240) were not significant, but there was a marginally significant interaction effect ( F 1, 44 = 3.98, p = 0.052).

An multinomial logistic regression analysis indicated that for overall developmental levels, being at the normal level was influenced by increased family income and decreased parental age (borderline significance at p = 0.052).

When comparing both subgroups using a log-rank test, there was a clear trend toward a reduced OS in FLT3 -ITD HIGH patients ( P = 0.052).

Significant positive correlations were also found between baseline CLU levels and the DAS28 at months 3 and 12 (r = 0.346, p = 0.012; r = 0.367, p = 0.007, respectively); however, the correlation at month 6 showed only a nonsignificant trend towards a positive association (r = 0.271, p = 0.052) (Fig. 2 ).

A main effect of group almost reached significance [ F (1, 18) = 4.315, p = 0.052, partial η 2 = 0.193].

The stimulation effect was close to significance [F(1,38) = 4.0; p = 0.052].

Participants’ inhibitory control ( β = 0.326, SE = 1.92, p = 0.061) and the peritraumatic heart rate during the sexual assault scene showed marginal significance ( β = 0.450, SE = 2.56, p = 0.052).

A statistical difference close to significance was found in AUC between our model and Milan criteria (p = 0.052) (Supplemental Table 3 ).

Differently, the Lows had a larger illusion index in normal waking (2.58 ± 0.46) compared to hypnosis ( p = 0.003, d = 1.12, CI [1.08 4.4]); whereas in the Highs the comparison between the illusion index in normal waking (1.81 ± 0.58) and in hypnosis showed only a trend toward significance ( p = 0.052, d = −0.64, CI [−4.98 0.03]) (Fig. 4B ).

Cu also trended higher in the deep samples but did not quite reach significance ( p = 0.052).

10 , standardized effect = −0.30, p = 0.003,), but the effect became only marginally significant when permutations were restricted to within urbanization levels (standardized effect size = −0.14, p = 0.052).

On the other hand, increased LHRs was the only predictor to SRS ( P = 0.014), and marginal significance of higher AV PG in multivariate analysis ( P = 0.052) (see Supplementary Table S2 ).

This effect was further qualified by a near-significant condition-by-time-by-group (F 1,62 = 3.911, p = 0.052, ηp2 = 0.059) as well as a significant condition-by-time- by-valence- by-group (F 1,62 = 4.040, p = 0.049, ηp2 = 0.061) interaction.

Additionally, there was a strong trend for a significant difference in PE across the three groups at d18 ( P = 0.052), with higher PE in the MFGM− group compared to the others.

However, a marginally significant difference was found between treatments (F (1,28) = 4.11, p = 0.052), and a significant one within treatments (F (1,28) = 7.73, p = 0.01).

6 ; χ 2 (1) = 5.55, P = 0.0184), while the interaction between music playing condition and accompaniment condition approached significance (χ 2 (1) = 3.78, P = 0.052).

Social presence condition just failed to reach statistical significance, p = .052, η 2 p = 0.03.

3 ), but only showed a marginally significant difference between the apple and banana substrates (GLM: χ 2 1,495 = 3.78, P = 0.052), and no effect of the interaction between resource type and frequency (GLM: χ 2 1,495 = 3.65, P = 0.06; Fig. 3 ).

Intracellular volume was borderline significant (p = 0.052) at the uncorrected level alpha = 0.05, whereas total body volume was not significant but still had a fairly small p-value of p = 0.083.

However, this correlation was only borderline significant in the group with early response (r = 0.572, p = 0.052).