“marginally significant”

The percentage of households practicing open defecation in a 200 m radius had a statistically significant association with increased prevalence of underweight ( p -value = 0.021) and marginally significant association with decreased weight-for-height z -scores ( p -value = 0.053).

There was a marginally significant difference in the adequate protection rates for the fold type before and during intubation using a direct laryngoscope ( P = 0.053) ( Figure 3 ). 3.4.

Results Behavioral data RTs We observed a marginally significant main effect of emotion, F(1, 23) = 4.158, p = .053, η p 2 = 0.153: participants responded more slowly to positive stimuli (507 ms) than to neutral stimuli (498 ms; see Fig. 2 ).

However, there was a marginally significant day by group interaction [ F (2, 74) = 3.08; p = 0.053; η p 2 = 0.08], indicating that the change in average responding during habituation over days differed between the groups.

Post hoc analyses showed a reduction in evidence following across actions that was significant in children ( b = −1.22, SE = 0.14, z = −8.74, p < 0.001) and dogs ( b = −0.30, SE = 0.14, z = −2.13, p = 0.033), and marginally significant in pigs ( b = −0.27, SE = 0.14, z = −1.93, p = 0.053).

However, the gender-stratified analyses revealed marginally significant effects in heterozygote model analyses in women ( P = 0.053).

The results showed marginally significant difference for deck D ( t = 1.98, p = 0.053), and no significance for deck A ( t = −0.61, p = 0.55).

Conversely, treatment with 50 mg/kg GET73 increased the number of (a) alley errors in session 1 ( P < 0.01, Mann–Whitney test; Figure 4 A) with a marginally significant effect in session 2 ( P = 0.053, Mann–Whitney test), (b) swimming reversals in session 1 ( P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney test; Figure 4 B), and (c) working-memory errors in session 1 ( P < 0.01, Mann–Whitney test), with a marginally significant effect in session 2 ( P = 0.080, Mann–Whitney test; Figure 4 C).

On the ladder walk test, a poisson regression revealed a marginally significant effect of treatment ( z = 1.93, p = 0.053) based on genotype ( z = 2.08, p = 0.038).

Over a median follow-up of 2.8 years (IQR 1.7, 4.5 years), there was a marginally significant reduction in sperm output (34% reduction from baseline median of 193 to 127 million; p=0.053) and sperm density (30% reduction from 61 to 43 million/mL; p=0.075), with no significant changes in sperm motility or morphology, or serum LH, FSH and testosterone.

Hence, a trend to a protective effect in human patients was observed for both compounds, although the decreased risk observed was marginally significant only for VPA ( p = 0.053).

the average numbers of nausea in ginger using patients was lower than placebo group two, four and six hours after surgery but this difference was marginally significant (P = 0.053) 2 hours after surgery ( Table 2 ).

For Black students’ graduation rates, however, there were significant main effects of both instrumental ( B = −0.054, SE = 0.027, CI [−0.11, 0.00], P = 0.045) and moral ( B = −0.070, SE = 0.032, CI [−0.13, −0.01], P = 0.031) rationales, as well as a marginally significant interaction ( B = 0.024, SE = 0.012, CI [0.00, 0.05], P = 0.053).

More specifically, in the non-Covid-19 group, we found significant associations between PMIE and physicians’ self-reported physical impact ( r = .376, p = .003) and a marginally significant association between PMIE and emotional impact ( r = .249, p = .053).

A chi-square analysis was performed and the effect was marginally significant, indicating increased forgetting over time [χ 2 (1) = 3.75, p = 0.053; Cramer’s φ = 0.31].

Greenhouse-Geisesr corrections revealed a marginally significant main effect of window ( F (1.42,34.14) = 3.567 p = .053, Ƞ p 2 = .129) with a linear trend over time ( F (1,24) = 3.757, p = .064, Ƞ p 2 = .135).

The interaction was marginally significant, B = − 0.01 [95% CI 0.00, − 0.03], p = 0.053, with simple effects suggesting a stronger effect of RAM for avoidance goals, B = − 0.14 [95% CI− 0.04, − 0.24], p = 0.010, than for approach goals, B = − 0.11 [95% CI − 0.03, − 0.19], p = 0.010.

Adults had a higher total hit rate ( M = 85%; SD = 10) than children, M = 80%; SD = 12, t (100) = −2.04, p = .044, d = 0.40. The interaction PICTURE CATEGORY × AGE GROUP was marginally significant ( p = .053).

However, taxon-BRI of HT corals tended to decrease with specificity d′ , but this trend was marginally significant ( Fig. 4A , PGLS no. 60, P = 0.053; see also Table S8 in reference 35 ), suggesting that resilient HT corals associate with a few host-specific phylotypes.

Inclusion of the interaction term treatment type × elevation (Table S5) significantly improved the model fit ( χ 2 = 8.44, P < 0.038) and was marginally significant (df = 2, LRT = 5.864, P = 0.053).

In this analysis, carboplatin dose was a marginally significant factor (odds ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.99–4.29; p = 0.053).

The group effect was marginally significant [ F (1,53) = 3.914, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.069], indicating that the disengaging of AVGPs was more efficient than that of NAVGPs.

The interaction was marginally significant for the outcome suicidality (F 2,80 =3.06, P =0.053).

Similarly, the correlation slopes of the AD patients were significantly more negative than those of healthy OA in the E/N bands and marginally significant ( p = 0.053) in the M band.

However, among those whose eGFR values declined, the relationship was marginally significant (β=0.161, P =0.053) at study baseline.