“marginally significant”

While more passive use was unrelated to self-reported nonverbal decoding skill, gender remained a marginally significant positive predictor (β std = 0.10, p = 0.052) indicating that females reported being more skilled nonverbal decoders than males.

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).

This effect was absent in the OFA (F (1,25) = 2.4, p = 0.13), with a marginally significant interaction (F (1,24) = 4.2, p = 0.052) between region (FFA vs.

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.

However, we found a marginally significant main effect of instruction history, F (2,72) = 3.09, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.079.

For proximal receptive vocabulary, there was a marginally significant interaction between reading status and the Audiobooks‐Only > Mindfulness contrast ( b = −1.049, SE = 0.536, p = 0.052), but not between reading status and the Audiobooks+Scaffold > Mindfulness contrast ( b = −0.120, SE = 0.563, p = 0.832).

Moreover, marginally significant difference was seen for hip circumference (p = 0.052), after adjusting for age, physical activity, and calorie intake.

Under the sentence conditions, an rANOVA with these two factors on the accuracy showed significant main effects of scrambling and topicalization [scrambling, F (1,16) = 12, p = 0.0036; topicalization, F (1,16) = 9.5, p = 0.0072], and an interaction between these factors was marginally significant [ F (1,16) = 4.4, p = 0.052].

Finally, a significant interaction of ‘ Group ’ and ‘ Sound Intensity ’ [ F (1,38) = 12.15, P < 0.05] was found for valence ratings, indicating that SAD patients rated loud stimuli more negatively than HCs ( Table 2 ).This interaction was marginally significant for arousal ratings [ F (1,38) = 4.02, P = 0.052].

This revealed a significant main effect of congruency, F (1, 50) = 120.98, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.708, and group F ( 1, 50) = 13.26, p = .001, η p 2 = 0.210, with neurotypical participants responding faster than ASC participants, and a marginally significant main effect of gaze, F (1, 50) = 3.96, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.073, with a trend to faster responses following direct gaze.

However, when testing grade as a moderator only in the path relationship between flow and trust, both the hypothetical (sophomoreβ = juniorβ) and the original models showed a marginally significant moderating effect ( p = .052).

The top–down attention effect is marginally significant at the palm location only for the right-handers without significant hand proximity attention [ F (1,7) = 2.34, P = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 1.53].

Distance per minute showed a marginally significant interaction between product and match week ( p = 0.052; η 2 p = 0.064, moderate effect size).

Further simple effect tests revealed significant differences in the grouping factors in Class 1 ( t (55) = 2.32, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.67), Class 3 ( t (55) = 2.55, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.85), Class 4 ( t (55) = 3.10, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and CS + ( t (55) = 2.72, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.26), marginally significant differences in Class 2 ( t (55) = 1.99, p = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 0.61), and no significant differences in CS- ( t (55) = 1.53, p > 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.52).

The correlation between the degree of kyphosis and EFR A was also statistically significant in SK ( P = 0.029) and TK patients ( P = 0.013), and it was marginally significant in CK patients ( P = 0.052).

Although stable disease was less common in patients with complex THID compared to those with simple THID (1.4% vs 5.4%), the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.052) (Table 2 ).

The correlation coefficient indicates a slightly negative, marginally significant correlation (r = -0.35, p = 0.052).

Much debate was ignited by a marginally significant 16% ( P = 0.052) reduction in fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction in the UKPDS where chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or glipizide were used as initial therapy in newly diagnosed uncomplicated diabetic patients ( 1 ).

There was a marginally significant correlation between macrovascular invasion and severe PHLF (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% CI, 0.990–8.276; p = 0.052).

The difference between the base group and the negative reinforcement group in the expected condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

1 C), while larger adipocytes (110–150 μm) show marginally significant difference in the density distribution (Fig. 1D , p -value = 0.052) and average maximal axis value ( p -value = 0.043; lipoma = 123.94 ± 0.28 μm; SAT = 124.79 ± 0.32 μm).

A marginally significant association indicating a two-fold lower odds of test positivity was noted among Asian vs White patients (p = 0.052, OR 0.513, 95% CI 0.262-1.004); however, race was otherwise not noted to be predictive of test positivity.

Sleep quality was the only significant predictor of incubus hallucination frequency, although dissociative experiences was a marginally significant predictor; P = 0.052 (Fig. 3 c).

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.

In this study, the association between a BMI ≥24 kg/m 2 and the risk of diabetes was marginally significant (P=0.052).