Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
Association between pathobiological markers of breast cancer including tumor size and Ki-67 and the relationship of these variables with DAI and age As shown in Table 5 , we found a positive and marginally significant relationship between tumor size and the Ki-67 marker (correlation coefficient = 0.14, p = 0.06).
marginally significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
Revealing a clear modulation of this preference, a two-by-two ANOVA performed on the proportion of choices favoring the slot option with a lower expected pay-off, with the social decision associated with that slot option (conforming or dissenting) and the size of the difference in pay-offs between options (large or small) as factors, yielded a main effect of social decision (F(29) = 7.40, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.20) and a main effect of the difference in pay-offs (F(29) = 17.88, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.38), as well as a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.06).
a decreasing trendp = 0.0611.2× alphagold
com after supplementation showed a decreasing trend in the percent CD4+ CD45RO+ memory T-cells post-supplement (Fig. 4 B, Pearson’s correlation = 0.51, p = 0.061), and an increasing trend in the percent CD4+ CD45RA+ naïve T-cells post-supplement (Fig. 4 C, Pearson’s correlation = 0.50, p = 0.060), and a significantly lower CD4+ CD45RO+: CD4+ CD45RA+ T-cell ratio after supplementation (Fig. 4 D, Pearson’s correlation = 0.67, p = 0.008).
a trend towards significancep = 0.0611.2× alpha
Finally, there was a trend towards significance for the 3-way interaction including the quadratic component (F(1,13) = 3.54, p = 0.061), which could be explained by a larger active vs. sham decrease of the (negative) quadratic coefficient for rhythmic than for sham stimulation (p < 0.05; CI = [−0.26 −0.03]; d = 0.76; B U[−0.10 0.24] = 2.26; both active vs. sham differences being significant when tested separately, p < 0.01; for rhythmic: d = 1.34; for random: d = 1.14).