“marginally significant”

There were marginally significant differences across the four groups, χ 2 (3, N = 114) = 7.73, p=.052.

In addition, we found a marginally significant increase in support for the outgroup (unlimited vs. control, p = 0.052; unlimited vs. limited, p = 0.075) and no significant difference in support for the ingroup (unlimited vs. control, p = 0.72; unlimited vs. limited, p = 0.42).

Table 5: Model adequacy is marginally significant (p=0.052) suggesting the model does not correctly fit.

A marginally significant increase in the stress index was observed during the Stroop condition compared to baseline (Wilk's Lambda = 0.84, F [2,34] = 3.236, p = 0.052, η2 = 0.16), suggesting a moderate effect size.

The IP group did not improve significantly pre-to posttreatment ( P =0.337), but pretreatment to follow-up, the improvement was marginally significant ( P =0.052).

The significant interaction between SNR and musicianship reflects the appearance of somewhat lower (better) thresholds for the musicians than non-musicians at a 2.5 dB SNR and in quiet; post hoc testing revealed that these differences were marginally significant after correction (2.5 dB, F 1, 56 = 6.02, p = 0.052; quiet, F 3, 629 = 6.59, p = 0.052).

However, duration of chemotherapy was marginally significant with patients receiving two vs three cycles of IC having slightly different rates of decline ( P = 0.052; Figure 1B ).

Results showed a marginally significant effect of Experiments [ F (2,57) = 3.123, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.099].

However, analysis of KTR detected a marginally significant difference over time (F[4,48] = 2.864, P = .052, eta 2 [g] = 0.074) but not between the groups or the interaction of group and time.

Among men, null associations were observed between all anthropometric measures with incident DN in the multivariate analysis although the 3 rd quartile of WHtR showed marginally significant results ( P = 0.052).

The interaction between the duration of the study and age was marginally significant ( p = 0.052), suggesting that younger people (18–34) wanted to spend less time on a study than the 45+ age category.

However, the partial correlation analysis results show that when ΔT was held as the control factor (constant), ΔSM had a marginally significant ( P = 0.052) relation with ΔNPP.

However, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between anthropomorphic cues and situational loneliness (F(1, 236) = 3.82, p = 0.052) showing that the effect of anthropomorphic cues on perceived product personalization is likely to be more pronounced when consumers experienced high (vs. low) situational loneliness.

In Model 2 ( Fig 4A ), RAN ( p = .002) and arithmetic ( p < .001) were significant predictors of reading ( R 2 = .42), while grapheme-phoneme processing was marginally significant ( p = .052).

Among high-educated participants in the total sample, the change over time in vegetable intake was marginally significant (p = .052) and no group differences were found (p = .25).

Statistically significant differences were observed exclusively for copper oxychloride after 4 hours of exposure (F 1,10 = 7.89; P = 0.018), though marginally significant differences were also reported for copper oxychloride (F 1,10 = 4.87; P = 0.052) and sulfur (F 1,10 = 4.67; P = 0.056) after 24 hours of exposure ( Fig. 1A ).

Previously screened The variation of the self-sampling effect by previous screening history was marginally significant ( P = 0.052), with the strongest effects observed among women screened less than 5 years ago and women without registered screening.

on, median) was 2·73 (0·30, 2·73) log 10 c.f.u./ml in G1 (no samples were positive in G2). Results of mathematical and statistical modeling In the univariate analysis, the effect of environmental contamination level significantly influenced the transmission rate ( P = 0·0002), the group effect was marginally significant ( P = 0·052) and the strain effect was not significant.

For the group aged ≥80 yr at death, the increase in the CPP of LPC from 4.8% (95% CI 0–10%) in 1962–1976 to 15% (95% CI 9.7–20%) in 2007–2020) was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

Moreover, the difference across early and late time windows was marginally significant (mean (ΔR 2 ) = 0.0096, p = 0.052; Figure 6 ).

CRNDE was also found to display a ≥2-fold differential expression and can be referred to as a marginally significant (P-value=0.052) differentially expressed lncRNA.

We did find marginally significant overexpression of ALS gene transcripts in weedy compared with wild individuals ( p = .052), suggesting constitutive overexpression of ALS may provide a survival advantage to weedy individuals in agriculture fields.

Specifically, there was a marginally significant decrease in we-words from 3 to 2 weeks before the NSSI event ( M decrease = −0.16, SE = 0.08, t = −1.96, p = 0.052), which stayed at a similar frequency level in the week immediately preceding the event.

For the mVLT, significant Group × Timepoint × Age interactions were observed for Aggregate Mean [ B = −0.29; SE ( B ) = 0.14; p = .049] and First Administration [ B = −0.76; SE ( B ) = 0.32; p = .023], with a similar marginally significant trend observed for Best Score [ B = −0.40; SE ( B ) = 0.20; p = .052].

The correct sentence should read: “However, in contrast with all other measures, the predicted increase for MI results is marginally significant: MI, T2 > T1, paired t(12) = -2.16, p = 0.052.” There is an error in reference 54.