“marginally significant”

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, the positive correlation between carbohydrate intake and ALT in the HC group remained marginally significant ( P = .053) ( Figure 1d ).

Patients’ clinicopathological characteristics, such as tumor size, axillary node status, tumor stage, histological grade, LVI, ER status, PR status, and molecular subtype, were all significantly correlated with the BCFI (p < 0.05), and age was marginally significant (p = 0.053) (Fig.

There was marginally significant evidence for short term extraneous variation between fortnights within months (EPV = 0.54, SE = 0.33, P = 0.053).

In the resulting model, the density of voles in year t − 1 became marginally significant (GLMM, coefficient estimate = 0.12, CI: 0.00 – 0.25, p = .053).

The improvement over Model 3 (common fate ratings only) was marginally significant; χ 2 (1) = 3.74, p = .053.

Participants in the MBMT group showed marginally significant lower scores than those in the MI group ( p = 0.053).

Planning one or more strategies was significantly associated with improved adherence; early DPP adherence was marginally significant (p=0.053) as a predictor of higher DPPOS adherence in this model.

There was a marginally significant effect of ratio, F (2, 104) = 3.02, p = 0.053, The Developing Mental Number Line: Does Its Directionality Relate to 5- to 7-Year-Old Children’s Mathematical Abilities? = 0.055, and a linear contrast analysis revealed a statistically significant linear trend, F (1, 55) = 4.45, p = 0.040, η p 2 = 0.079, such that performance improved as ratio decreased (e.g., better performance for a ratio of 4:7 than 4:5), as expected.

The interaction Visual Field × Hand arrangement was not significant: F (1, 26) = 1.121, p = 0.229, while, the Hand × Hand Arrangement interaction was marginally significant F (1, 26) = 4.116, p = 0.053 with the right hand slightly faster (254 ms) than the left hand (261 ms) with the inverted, but not with the anatomical arrangement (left hand = 267 vs. right hand = 268 ms).

Although Axes 1 and 2 were constrained, Axis 2 was marginally significant (F-ratio = 6.74, p = 0.053) ( Table 4 ).

Subsequent one-way ANOVAs showed that there were significant effects of angular deviations for Targets, F (6,150) = 4.257, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.146, marginally significant effects for Probes, F (6,150) = 2.128, p = 0.053, η 2 p = 0.078, but not significant effects for Irrelevants, F (6,150) = 1.361, p = 0.234, η 2 p = 0.052.

Results In total, 1 year after the mindset induction, students originally assigned at random to the Develop condition reported on average greater intentions to use cultivation strategies when their passion was low ( M = 27.61, SD = 3.75), compared to those in the Fit condition—a marginally significant effect ( M = 25.57, SD = 4.74), b = 2.04, [0.02, 4.11], t (68) = 1.97, p = 0.053, Cohen’s d = 0.48.

The V30 was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

Overall, these different forms of interteaching-to-interteaching comparisons yielded a small and marginally significant summary effect size ( g = 0.298, p = .053, 95% CI [− 0.004 to 0.601]).

18.8% [0–38.7]%; p = 0.041) and marginally significant for the menopause and health domain (40.7% [16.9–62.9]% vs. 13.6% [0.0–45.6]%; p = 0.053) ( Table 2 and Fig 4 ), representing the domain of vasomotor symptoms, hot flashes, sleep quality, and aging perception.

During hyperglycemia, time to complete math was significantly longer and reaction time was marginally significant ( P = 0.053).

For male left hand 2D:4D there was a marginally significant relationship with percent of male deaths ( B = 1122.12, SE B = 527.77, beta = 0.47, p = .053) and no relationship for female left hand 2D:4D ( B = 579.00, SE B = 375.07, beta = 0.34, p = .15). 4.

For the 1-week delay there was a marginally significant difference between the conditions ( F [1, 39] = 3.99, P = 0.053) but again no significant group difference emerged ( F [1, 39] = 2.74, P = 0.11) nor an interaction effect ( F [1, 39] = 1.6, P = 0.21) (with percentages of 0.17 and 0.30 in the Include and 0.32 and 0.33 in the Exclude condition for the patients and controls, respectively).

Footnotes 1 https://jasp-stats.org 2 When entering a gender variable into the analyses, there was only a marginally significant main effect of gender indicating that males performed better than females at the test phase, F (1,59) = 3.89, p = 0.053; η p 2 = 0.06 ; no other significant main effects or interactions with gender were observed, either in the learning phase or in the test phase (minimum p = 0.204). 3 The stress manipulation that we used was identical to the study of Quaedflieg et al.

However, a four-class model yielded a marginally significant LMR-LRT value, suggesting that a four-class model may fit the data better than the three-class model ( p = .053).

cynotis study (Study 1) demonstrated statistically significant differences on Day 0 in the average age (Felpreva®-treated cats: 28.8 months, Stronghold® Plus-treated cats: 42.7 months, Wilcoxon test, P = 0.026, per protocol population) and a marginally significant differences in the average body weight (Felpreva®-treated cats: 3.0 kg, Stronghold® Plus-treated cats: 3.3 kg, Wilcoxon test P = 0.053, per protocol population) on Day 0.

bTwo-way ANOVA revealed a marginally significant increase in the cytotoxic index in the tumour as a result of the consumption of ferric citrate (row means, P = 0.053).

However, there was a marginally significant association between age and diabetes status (chi-square value = 4.08, p-value = 0.053), with a higher proportion of participants aged 51-70 years in the diabetes group compared to the non-diabetes group.

Leaf area variables in response to warming Rainforest groups differed significantly in their responses to warming for LA and LAR ( P ≤0.05) and differences were marginally significant for SLA ( P =0.053; Table 2 ).

50% larger for BFG compared to BF, and marginally significant (SOC: P = 0.053, POXC: P = 0.055, HWC: P = 0.063), whereas the concentrations were not significantly different for AG compared to A ( Fig. 3 ).