Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = .0581.2× alphagold
Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analysis on the interaction effect revealed a significant difference (p = .03) between CS+ 1ws (mean = 523.77 ms; sd = 149.42 ms) and CS+ 2ws (mean = 540.63 ms; sd = 161.03 ms) in the second hemiblock; a marginally significant effect emerged also for the first hemiblock (p = .058), with CS+ 1ws (mean = 517.36 ms; sd = 142.10 ms) presenting slightly faster reaction times than CS+ 2ws (mean = 527.55 ms; sd = 147.02 ms).
marginally significantp = 0.05811.2× alphagold
In contrast, for determination coefficients, randomized block design two-way ANOVA results indicated significant or marginally significant main effects of training and test and interactions ([position]; a main effect of training: F(4, 20) = 2.73, p = 0.0581; a main effect of test: F(4, 20) = 14.08, p < 0.0001; interaction between training and test: F(16, 80) = 6.56, p < 0.0001; [velocity]; a main effect of training: F(4, 20) = 11.62, p < 0.0001; a main effect of test: F(4, 20) = 26.25, p < 0.0001; interaction between training and test: F(16, 80) = 36.00, p < 0.0001).
marginally significantP = 0.0591.2× alphagold
Contrary to the expectation of coral lipid content being reduced by environmental stress, the total tissue lipid content in O-corals showed a marginally significant increase when transplanted to N-site (Tukey-HSD, P = 0.059, SI.1A ), while N-corals showed very little change in their lipid content between the sites (Fig. 2 B).
near-significantp = 0.0591.2× alphagold
Following this up with two separate analysis for each assessment day, we found the main effect of stimulation on the second (but not the first) day of assessment at the level of near-significant tendency (F (2; 69) = 2.944; p = 0.059; ηp 2 = 0.079), with higher accuracy for abstract words in anodal tDCS than in sham group, albeit only at tendency level (p = 0.091; Z = − 2.2) (Fig. 5 ).
a positive trendp = .0591.2× alphagold
Significant individual predictors: Involuntary memory While Model 3 (see Table 4 ) was statistically significant, none of the individual predictors reached conventional levels of significance, although MAIA Noticing showed a positive trend (B = 0.266, SE = 0.138, t = 1.92, p = .059, β = 0.245), suggesting individuals more attuned to bodily sensations may experience more involuntary memories.
showed a trendp = 0.0591.2× alpha
11 C-deuterium-L-deprenyl PET region of interest analysis Comparisons of four groups (presymptomatic ADAD carriers, MCI PIB+, sAD and ADAD non-carriers) using Kruskal-Wallis tests in each of 11 ROIs (except for the cerebellum), showed a trend toward statistical significance for the anterior cingulate cortex, the thalamus and the hippocampus (p = 0.059–0.069) ( Supplementary Table S1b ).