“marginally significant”

The model was marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.16; F 3,42 = 2.76, p = 0.054, f 2 = 0.20) and the factor EC remained a significant predictor of the behavioral index ( β = 0.40, F 1,42 = 7.49, p = 0.009, η p 2 = 0.15).

At follow-up there were team functioning differences by diffusion timing such that innovators, compared to later adopters (“early/late majority” and “laggards” combined), had significantly higher overall scores ( p = .013) and domain scores in communication ( p = .019), role clarity ( p = .006), and goals and means ( p = .015), and marginally significant higher scores in cohesiveness ( p = .054).

When the correlation was controlled for the effect of age, it remained marginally significant, r p = 0.51, p = .054, indicating that this effect was not merely driven by general age-related changes.

The two-way interaction between the number of stickers shared and whose mood was being rated was marginally significant ( b = −0.05, SE = 0.04, t (186) = −1.94, p = 0.054).

Furthermore, marginally significant trend was observed for the prevalence of CKD (44.16% in phase 2 vs. 51.65% in phase 5, p value = 0.054).

4 , 8 , 10 , 39 Patients with and without temporopolar GMB in our study were both over 10 years old at seizure onset, with a marginally significant after between‐group comparison ( P = 0.054), which is much older than the pediatric cohort, 39 and consistent with findings in adult cohorts. 4 , 8 However, retrospective evaluation of early stage in series of adult patients mainly relies on the vague recollection from their guardian, r

The marginally significant three-way interaction among the main effects (ANOVA, P = 0.054, Table 2 ), however, suggested that F v / F m was affected by an interaction between damage and flow that varied between temperatures.

Results showed a significant partial mediating effect of physical health (β = 1.20, SE = .53, p = .003), a marginally significant partial mediating effect of cognitive functioning (β = 1.35, SE = .70, p = .054) and no mediating effect of mental health.

On the BDI, responders showed marginally significant improvement (pre: 4.08 ± 4.79; post: 2.62 ± 3.78, t = 2.13, p = 0.054) compared with nonresponders (pre: 7.36 ± 6.1; post: 5.91 ± 5.82, t = 0.967, p = 0.356), who did not have significant improvement.

The 0.5 mg/kg dose exhibited a marginally significant increase in AUC glucose levels compared to controls (p = 0.054), while the 1, 2 and 6 mg/kg doses all evinced substantial increases in AUC values (p < 0.001); these effects were evident 15–30 minutes after the glucose challenge.

4 E) but positively correlated with the PC2 values at a marginally significant level ( r = 0.17, P = 0.054; Fig. 4 F).

The increases in survival afforded by sLP at +3 h and G-CSF were statistically significant relative to the PBS control ( p = 0.006 and p = 0.014, respectively), while survival increase by injection of sLP at +24 h was marginally significant compared to PBS ( p = 0.054).

The results of a two-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant effect of psychiatric disorders ( p < 0.001) and a marginally significant effect of genetic status ( p = 0.054) on the total AAS score.

A marginally significant effect of conglobation was detected at 70 %RH (ANCOVA; P = 0.054), but not at 75 %RH (P > 0.25).

Genetic distance showed marginally significant correlation with soil parameters (all soil variables standardized) in H. apenninum subsp. estevei ( p ‐value = 0.054).

This analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of treatment ( F (1, 18) = 4.264, p = .054, ή p 2 = 0.192) and a significant interaction between treatment and TRP:ΣLNAA ratios ( F (1, 18) = 9.399, p = .007, ή p 2 = 0.343).

We found a significant main effect for condition [ F (2, 18) = 20.1, p = 0.0001, ή 2 = 0.7], a marginally significant effect for Type [ F (1, 19) = 4.226, p = 0.054, ή 2 = 0.18] and a significant interaction of Type and Condition [ F (2, 18) = 14.624, p < 0.0001, ή 2 = 0.6].

Additionally, a marginally significant interaction was found between the shot result and group, F (2, 85) = 3.02, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.07.

A repeated measures ANOVA of within-subject effects on reaction times revealed a marginally significant main effect of target color repetition [ F (1, 19) = 4.236, p = 0.054, η 2 p = 0.182] but no effect of reward value [ F (1, 19) = 1.129, p = 0.301, η 2 p = 0.056].

For cueing costs (neutral – invalid), however, the ANOVA on accuracy scores revealed a marginally significant interaction between cue duration and frequency, F (2, 94) = 3.01, p = .054, η p 2 = .06, but no significant main effects.

Consumption of breastmilk at time of sample collection had marginally significant effects on bacterial phylogenetic relatedness at 6 weeks after adjusting for other exposures and corrected gestational age (p=0.054).

Preliminary analyses showed a significant interaction between sex and BMI category with respect to the somatization score ( p = 0.003) and a marginally significant interaction between sex and BMI category for somatization case status ( p = 0.054).

It showed a marginally significant difference in case of IL-8 (RR=−1.149, P=0.054).

Soil volumetric water content exhibited a weak and marginally significant positive relationship with soil respiration ( R 2 = 0.078, P = 0.054; Figure 5 ).

The remaining 35% of the overall impact of the incident 5 were estimated to be marginally significant in a longer-term basis (step function: ω = 61.9, 95%CI = −0.9, 124.8, p = 0.054).