Excerpts

There was a marginally significant difference between positive and negative language contexts ( p = 0.060).

Similarly, simvastatin-mediated repression of lecithin cholesterol acyltransferase ( Lcat ) was found to be near statistical significance in the females, but not males (p = 0.06; Table 1 ).

However, we deem this prospect unlikely due to the subtle visual differences between ‘eyes open’ and ‘eyes closed’ conditions, and the reported lack of difference between the ‘eyes open’ and ‘half looking’ conditions, as well as the ‘eyes closed’ and ‘not looking’ conditions (although the later relationship was approaching significance ( p = 0.06 ) and would likely be significant in a more powered study).

We have previously reported associations of serum LPL concentrations between mothers and daughters, though borderline significant ( p = 0.06) 30 .

In oviparous females, 128C cells had larger nucleoli than 32C and 64C cells ( p < 0.001 each), yet the difference between 32 and 64C cells was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.06).

5B ) revealed a strong trend decrease in density of cones in the spaceflight mice (950 counts/mm 2 ) compared to ground control group that had an average of 1199 counts/mm 2 (p = 0.06).

When compared differences between Hr-AD and Lr-AD, Hr-AD showed higher elevation of SA rate than Lr-AD with marginal significance (P = 0.06), and it did not show difference in RI between the groups. rTMS increases dopamine concentration and expression of dopamine receptor 4 in AD mouse AD is characterised by markedly reduced concentration of neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine and glutamate in hippocampus and neocortex 31 .

With these variables in the model, heritability in RJA performance was reduced and only borderline significant (h 2 = .228, s.e. = .152, p < .06).

Fresh weight of Okra showed borderline significance ( p ~ 0.06) when compared with control group.

There was a marginally significant Group × Cue Validity interaction for P100 latencies, F (2, 53) = 2.92, p = 0.06, η P 2 = 0.10.

The interaction term for assessment of risk heterogeneity across sex was marginally significant in rectal cancer ( p = 0.06).

During the submaximal trials, we found a strong trend for a correlation between SICI in the activation phase and the maximal shortening velocity of the TA SF (r 2 = 0.25, p = 0.06) but not for the TA DP (r 2 = 0.002, p = 0.87; Fig. 6 A,B).

T1 competence showed a marginally significant positive association with T2 ignored ( β = 0.07, p = .06) and a significant negative association with T2 rejected ( β = − 0.07, p = .05).

The correlation between AQ and BAS drive scores showed a trend effect ( r = −0.27, p = 0.06).

However, in scenario B, the difference between GU and AM at post-assessment was only borderline significant, ( t (99) = 1.90, p = 0.06, d = 0.50) (see Supplementary Table S24 for a summary of the contrast analyses).

Association of T2 lesion metrics with clinical outcome scores In the OPERA II dataset, log-transformed baseline T2 TLV showed a trend ( p = 0.06) towards association with CDP24 when using the GT or model-predicted masks (Table 4 ) in the univariable CPH analysis.

2 b and Supplementary Table S3 online), but the interaction effect between groups and 1 week after intervention was marginally significant, a consistent trend with STAI-SA (β = 1.95, SE = 1.03, p = 0.06).

In contrast, thermocycling significantly decreased the μTBS of CAD ( p = 0.03), although HOCl pretreatment was shown to stabilize μTBS in CAD, approaching significance ( p = 0.06).

A strong trend toward a decrease in accuracy was seen when including only entropy (kurtosis weight 0 and entropy weight 1) (0.676 ± 0.0482, p = 0.06) and weaker trends toward a decrease in accuracy when kurtosis is weighted 5:1 over entropy (0.704 ± 0.103, p = 0.21) or entropy is weighted 5:1 over kurtosis (0.712 ± 0.0676, p = 0.28).

Memory performance group also showed a trend towards an interaction with encoding/ retrieval (F = 2.84, p = .060), caused by larger group differences in retrieval than encoding activity.

The Lag x AQ Group x STAI Group interaction also approached significance, F (1.56, 212.82) = 3.20, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.01, but was not explored further due to being both uninterpretable and irrelevant to the current study as it lacked an effect of emotion.

The SS group showed significantly higher PC1 scores than both the HH group (Tukey HSD: z = 5.81, P < 0.01) and the HS group (Tukey HSD: z = 4.45, P < 0.01), while the difference between the HH and the HS groups were almost significant (Tukey HSD: z = 2.26, P = 0.06).

Notably, the comparison in AZGP1 in the unbound fraction was nearly significant (p = 0.06) and demonstrated a similar trend of increased levels in PCa patients, suggesting that AZGP1 may be over-expressed at the protein level and not necessarily displaying differential glycosylation.

Analysis of synchronization variability as determined by the standard deviation of tap-to-tone asynchronies revealed a trend towards significance of factor time ( F (1, 17) = 3.91, p = 0.06), while neither stimulation ( F (2, 34) = 0.45, p = 0.64) nor the stimulation x time interaction were found to be significant ( F (2, 34) = 0.048, p = 0.91).

c-tDCS group showed comparatively lower improvements than the s-tDCS group in accuracy interference reduction after the intervention trending towards significance (Fig. 6 a), Brunner-Munzel t (41.83) = −1.93, p = 0.06, δ = 0.32 (medium).