“marginally significant”

In contrast, honey bees showed a marginally significant difference in pollen deposition per visit between downward (29.8 ± 3.0, N = 45) and upward flowers (21.9 ± 2.5, N = 33; Wald χ 2 = 3.808, p = 0.051; Figure 3b ). 3.4 Effects of Flower Orientation on Pollen Viability and Stigma Receptivity Pollen viability in P. cyrtonema was significantly affected by sampling time, floral orientation and weather conditions (sunlight vs. rainwater exposure; Table 1 ; Figure 4 ).

1a ; P = 0.021), while the gene-level genetic burden was marginally significant in the same category (P = 0.051).

Early graduates rated commitment to the profession higher than recent graduates did, while commitment to the organisation was marginally significant for the year of graduation ( p = 0.051).

The vigorous PA MET was marginally significant: F (1,39) = 4.06 and p = 0.051.

Moreover, after applying the modified Bonferroni’s method to adjust possible errors during multiple comparison, the correlations of DMO levels to glucose (adjusted p = 0.047), or DMO C/D ratios to insulin (adjusted p = 0.049) remain significant statistically, but the correlation between levels of DMO and homocysteine became marginally significant (adjusted p = 0.051).

In the meantime, the IG demonstrated a marginally significant improvement for poor well-being ( p = 0.051) and a decreased risk for self-reported social anxiety ( p = 0.029) using the group * time interaction term. 4.

A 2 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors target type (no-onset, onset) and number of onsets (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 items) revealed a marginally significant main effect for target type, F (1, 11) = 4.78, p = 0.051, due to the somewhat higher error rate with no-onset targets than with onset targets (3.7 vs. 2.7%, respectively).

There was a marginally significant effect of age, F (2, 42) = 3.1, p = .051, showing that the musicians group was older (26.5 years) than the bilingual (23.5 years) and the controls (22.9 years).

Time-Lagged Effects The cross-lagged parameters indicated that age 15 bullying victimization was significantly and positively associated with age 17 suicidal ideation in all tested models ( βs = 0.09–0.10, ps < 0.050), with the exception of models including both anxiety symptoms and alcohol use that showed a marginally significant effect (anxiety symptoms and beer/alcopops model: β = 0.08, p = 0.051; anxiety symptoms and spirits model: β = 0.08, p = 0.055).

Results Repeated measures of ANOVA revealed significant size main effects (F = 8.322, p ≤ 0.001, η 2 = 0.274) and marginally significant group-by-breast volume interaction (F = 2.457, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.100) for the EMG activity of the TES during TIST45°.

A one-way ANOVA of the percent of respondents with children under 18 was marginally significant ( p = .051), with “little bit of everything” and “low demand” caregivers containing a higher percent of caregivers with children under age 18 compared to “the managers” and “hands-on” caregivers.

The interaction of ROI with reward was marginally significant ( F (2.55,66.25) = 2.880, P = 0.051).

A significant correlation was found between affected ankle dorsiflexion strength and CB&M performance ( r =0.341, P=0.008), whereas ankle plantarflexion strength on the affected side showed a marginally significant correlation with CB&M performance ( r =0.253, P=0.051).

After 12 months, the reduction in score was still higher in the HHR group ( Table 2 ) although the difference was marginally significant in this case (p=0.051).

Interestingly, this effect was more pronounced in the Simon task than in the Eriksen task, as reflected in a marginally significant interaction, F (1, 31) = 4.10, p = . 051, η p 2 = .12 (with p = . 812 and η p 2 < . 01 for the main effect of task).

The post-hoc pairwise comparison of concrete samples and negative controls revealed only a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.051), and some concrete extracts measured lower than some extracts from sterilized control samples, indicating that some concrete samples had less DNA than what would be expected from background contamination.

One‐way between‐subjects analysis of variances showed marginally significant differences in terms of age, F (2, 253) = 3.01, p = .051, and habitual violent video game play, F (2, 253) = 2.99, p = .052.

Honesty of Leaders’ Communication to Their Follower A two-way ANOVA on our honesty score controlling for the number of words leaders used in their e-mail to their follower, showed a marginally significant pride × moral identity interaction, F (1, 110) = 3.90, p = .051, η p 2 = .03 ( p s main effects > .26).

The interaction between CAD subtype and the RAR for MACEs was marginally significant ( p = 0.051; Fig. 7 ).

Lifestyle factors also influenced underweight risk—not going to the gym was marginally significant (aOR: 1.21, p = 0.051).

There was a marginally significant difference in aggressive behavior (i.e., noise intensity) between the two game groups [ F (1, 47) = 4.02, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.08], such that the prosocial game group assigned lower-intensity sounds to their rivals compared to the neutral game group(see Figure 2D ).

Also a marginally significant Group × Lag interaction was found, F (3, 78) = 2.71, MSE = 51.77, p = .051, η 2 p = .09, such that particularly at lags 2 and 3, non-blinkers seemed to show fewer order reversals than blinkers did.

In addition, there was a main effect for mode-of-thought [ F (1,96)=6.24, p <0.05], as well as a marginally significant order × mode-of-thought interaction [ F (5,92)=2.31, p=0 .051].

Age was shown to have a marginally significant influence on the tibial meniscal SH at the medial (p = 0.051) and lateral (p = 0.09) region B and medial region C (p = 0.054).

However, for NP2-biased verbs, the difference between congruent and incongruent conditions was not significant for the high-proficiency group ( β = −0.014, SE = 0.037, t = −0.371, p = 0.711) but was marginally significant for the low-proficiency group ( β = −0.076, SE = 0.039, t = −1.951, p = 0.051).