“marginally significant”

For accuracy , this analysis revealed a marginally significant three-way interaction between frequency, interval, and sleep group [ F (1, 36) = 4.031; p = 0.052; η 2 = 0.101; BF incl = 0.128 (moderate support for H 0 )].

pNGAL was marginally significant (p = 0.052) and uCyC was not significant (p = 0.76) after they were added to the parsimonious clinical model.

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 ).

There was a marginally significant positive relationship between the biomass of A. syriaca per site and the number of “complete” pollinia on honeybee individuals ( t 159 = 2.748, p = .052; Figure 2 b), as well as a significant relationship with the number of corpusculum only that were attached per honeybee ( t 159 = 5.190, p < .001; Figure 2 d), the proportion of pollinia vectored ( t 159 = 6.047, p < .001) (Figure 2 f), and the total (pollinia + corpusculum only) ( t 159 = 4.695, p = .116).

In addition, we found that the pure effect of vertical distance ([Dist|Env+BF]) is marginally significant ( adjusted R 2 = 8.9%, P = 0.052) ( Table 1 ), whereas the pure effect of stratification ([BF|Env+Dist]) is not significant ( adjusted R 2 = 25%, P = 0.15) ( Table 1 ).

The indirect effect via attention was significant (β=-0.16, 95% confidence interval; CI [-0.40, -0.02], p =0.034), making the direct effect marginally significant (β=-0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.00], p =0.052).

The interaction effect was marginally significant, F (2, 396) = 3.0, p = 0.052, partial η 2 = 0.02.

Mendelian randomization analysis results Using the IVW method, a marginally significant positive association was observed between CASP3 levels and the risk of ASD (OR = 1.660, 95% CI: 0.995–2.769, p = 0.052).

The overall mean age of the two groups was 27.7 years, with the patients in group A being younger than those in group B by only a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.052).

Treatment effects also varied significantly by newborn sex for newborn weight ( p = 0.028) with marginally significant results for weight to length ratio-for-age z -score ( p = 0.052) and length-for-age z -score ( p = 0.071).

Math talk significantly predicted average latency scores, B = −49.63, SE = 16.21, p = .003, and there was a marginally significant effect for average attachment and friendship scores, B = −2.59, SE = 1.31, p = .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.

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).

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).

The completion of treatment was significant in the population (p=0.034), and eradication was marginally significant (p=0.052) (Table 2 ).

The frequency of dragging was explained by a marginally significant species × treatment interaction term (F 1, 75 = 3.89, p = 0.052; table 2c ).

The two means were compared via Student’s t-test, showcasing marginally significant ( p value = 0.052) results supporting a decrease in abundance for this peptide in connection with LN involvement.

These main effects were modulated by a significant Trial Type × Age interaction F (2, 54) = 3.21, p = .048, partial eta squared = .11 and a marginally significant Trial Type × Cycle Point interaction F (1, 54) = 3.95, p < .052, partial eta squared = .068.

There were no differences between the MBSR and SME groups in mindfulness ( F (1,59) = 3.251, p = .77, partial η 2 = 0.55), and a marginally significant difference in anxiety levels [ F (1,59) = 3.93, p = .052, partial η 2 = 0.63].

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).

Furthermore, the correlation between letter knowledge and WD1 within the DHH group was marginally significant ( p = .052), indicating a possible relation between kindergarten letter knowledge and word decoding already from the first measurement.

A post-hoc analysis was marginally significant (p = .052), and became significant if the 6-month completers were omitted from the analysis (3-year completers differed from the other groups).

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.

In the final model, partial mediation was shown (path b and c), (F(2,40)=12.24, p<0.001), where the model accounted for 38% of the percent weight loss, and group posts became a marginally significant predictor of percent weight loss (β=1.59, p=0.052), but meals logged remained significant (β=0.407, p=0.001).

2A ), but this effect appeared weaker than the shift in perception for /aba/ sounds, as suggested by a marginally significant interaction (F(1, 26) = 4,15, p = 0.052) between current stimulus (auditory /aba/, /ada/) and previous stimulus (fused McGurk stimulus, all other stimuli).