“marginally significant”

In the TaqMan subgroup, a marginally significant effect between them was also detected under the additive genetic model (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85,1.00, P = .051) (Table 4 ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between the Badness IAT and the Officers Subscale (B = 0.06, p =.051).

The average increase between the baseline and midprogram evaluations and between the midprogram and end of program evaluations was 10.6% and 7.7%, respectively, which in both cases is characterized as marginally significant ( P =.051 and P =.049, respectively).

The same pattern was found for high probability targets (19.5%, 95% CI [15.3,24.5]), and this is marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

While a marginally significant difference in phonological fluency was found pre-training between the dyslexic and control groups [ t (19) = 2.08, p = 0.051], no such difference was found following the training.

in medium-sized abattoirs was 18.5% (95% CI 9.3–33.6), which was higher compared to other pig abattoirs, with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.051).

When grouping populations by year, a slight but marginally significant year effect was also observed (0.16% variance, P = 0.051) ( Table 3 ).

Furthermore, we observed a marginally significant association between the Y402H polymorphism and CFH expression in the hippocampus ( P =0.051); however, this significance was lost after multiple testing correction ( P =0.51, after Bonferroni correction).

In addition, the main effect of diagnosis was marginally significant ( F (1,31) = 4.11, p = .051, partial η 2 = .117).

Repeated measures ANOVA for S++, S+++ latency differences, were marginally significant for Chrominance [F(1,8) = 5.245, p = 0.051 Greenhouse-Geisser corrected] and significant for the Luminance condition [F(1,8) = 6.898, p = 0.030 Greenhouse-Geisser corrected] ( Fig. 5, G and H ). 3.

The 500–700 ms time window—The mixed-effects modelling’s fitting results showed that the main effect of the condition was marginally significant ( χ 2 (2) = 3.80, p = 0.051), and post hoc comparison suggested that the average amplitude caused by aspect violation sentences and by correct sentences was marginally significant ( β = −1.27, SE = 0.66, z = −1.94, p = 0.053).

round-faced person) and sour foods was marginally significant (angular-faced sour : M = 3.200, SD =1.642 vs. round-faced sour : M = 2.380, SD = 0.865, F 1, 39 = 4.051, p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.094). 3.3.3.

Serum leucine–isoleucine was also numerically higher in MetS, but the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

There was, however, a marginally significant interaction between listening span scores and drug (F(1,99) = 3.912, p = 0.051).

Fecundity and maintenance costs A two‐way ANOVA revealed no effect of salinity on fecundity ( F 2,35 = 2.39, P = 0.11), but a marginally significant effect of selection ( F 3,35 = 2.86, P = 0.051) with the lowest fecundity in heat‐selected lines (Fig. 4 ).

There was a marginally significant association between OH/ECW and SBP (r = 0.171; P = 0.051).

This again resulted in a significant difference between ascending and central presentation direction (β = −.18 [−.32, −.04], t = −2.47, p = .014), and a marginally significant difference between central and descending presentation direction (β = .14 [.00, .28], t = 1.95, p = .051) and a significant effect for sentence spatial location values (β = .31 [.16, .46], t = 4.16, p < .001).

There was a significant decrease in ZBI scores with a large ES between the pre- and post-program (Z = 2.04, ES = 0.72, p = 0.042) and a marginally significant decrease with a large ES in CES-D scores (Z = 1.94, ES = 0.69, p = 0.051).

Additionally, a trend of decreasing breast ratio was observed with increasing FSM levels, although this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

The model showed that both NP types (Fe 2 O 3 and ZnO) presented a tendency to influence the glycated BSA fluorescence, with Fe 2 O 3 showing a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.051).

Similar to base model 2, adding adiponectin to base model 3 did not improve AUC, but resulted in small yet marginally significant NRI (0.12, P = 0.051) and IDI (0.01, P < 0.05).

PRS was shorter in the LI group regardless of the recurrence risk, although the p -values were marginally significant (LR, 34.04 ± 25.12 vs. 41.62 ± 21.95, p = 0.051; HR, 26.50 ± 22.48 vs. 32.42 ± 22.64, p = 0.033).

As displayed in the Supplementary Materials (Table S4 ), all findings remained significant ( p < 0.01), except for the direct daily association between NO 2 and fatigue which became marginally significant ( p = 0.051) but continued to be qualified by the significant interaction.

Reaction time for congruent stimuli Accuracy for congruent stimuli showed a marginally significant positive association with reaction time for congruent stimuli (coefficients or parameter estimates: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00–1.22, p = 0.051).

Interaction analysis shows that the interaction term BMI × sex was marginally significant (OR = 1.927 [95% CI, 0.996–3.726], p = 0.051, Table 3 , Model 4a).