“marginally significant”

In the Lambda Wave components, a significant or marginally significant difference, in the case of L2, was observed, with faces with averted (L1, p = 0.015; L2, p = 0.095; L3, p = 0.042; L4, p = 0.009) and direct gaze (L1, p = 0.035; L2, p = 0.041; L3, p = 0.048; L4, p = 0.005) showing smaller/more negative amplitudes than buildings. 4.

However, the changes of FC between the right putamen and right thalamus showed marginally significant correlation with the change of the executive function ( r = 0.7071, p = 0.0150, Figure 6 ).

perplexus (11.1%), this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.015; FET), in contrast to a comparison of Nosema infection of B. vagans (20.3%), where the difference with B. impatiens was highly significant ( p < 0.0001; FET).

For MK, an interaction between sub‐bundle and age was found to be marginally significant ( F 1.6,4269.5 = 4.7, p = .01528) only when considering the subjects for whom all bundles could be delineated.

Surprisingly, female-biased genes (Fem-FC3 and Fem-6-SP) had significantly higher dN/dS rates compared with UB ones ( p -value = 2.876 × 10 −04 for Fem-FC3 and p -value = 2.725 × 10 −05 for Fem-6-SP, significant after Bonferroni correction), whereas Male-FC3 genes had only a marginally significant faster rate ( p- value = 1.558 × 10 −02 , not significant after Bonferroni correction) (Fig. 3 ).

Of interest, the interaction between primary psychopathy and trait anxiety scores was marginally significant on the learning rate for positive PE in the domain of losses (Δ R 2 = 0.187, F (3,44) = 3.839, p = 0.016, β = 0.337, p = 0.054; Table 3 ).

Only the 8 th largest component (PC8) was found to be significantly associated with P DD ( t = −3.033, p = 0.005, p corr = 0.027) and marginally significant for P Sz ( t = −2.560, p = 0.016, p corr = 0.055).

In females, but not males, insulin sensitivity improved (HOMA%S +35%, p = 0.016, marginally significant) with longer fast duration (16 h vs. 12 h), but paradoxically, postprandial glycaemia was higher (glucose iAUC +37%, p = 0.002).

Post hoc analysis of the two-way interactions showed a significant pre-to-post increase in peer-rated cooperation in the enriched PE group ( t (90) = −3.21, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.26) but a non-significant decrement in the traditional PE group ( p = 0.166), leading to a large, though marginally significant (for adjusted p < 0.016) group difference at post-test ( t (179) = 2.38, p = 0.018, Cohen’s d = 0.62) ( Figure 5 ).

Little’s MCAR test was not significant for Set A, indicating that the data were missing completely at random, but was marginally significant ( p = 0.016) for Set B, suggesting that those missing values may be missing at random.

Hyperopia Group and Astigmatism Group As shown in Table 1B , in the hyperopia group, the three devices had significant differences in SE, DS, and DC with CR (P < 0.05), notably, the difference in DS for the Columba 300 was marginally significant (P = 0.016); in the astigmatism group, all devices showed significant differences in SE, DS, and DC from CR (P < 0.001), but YD-SX-A exhibited the smallest mean difference in DC (mean difference −0.19 D).

However, after Bonferroni correction (α-level = 0.0125) the effect on wing-bar brightness would turn to marginally significant ( P = 0.016).

There is only a weak, marginally significant negative correlation between the level of resistance and fitness cost (Supplementary Fig. 1 , Spearman’s rho = −0.24, P = 0.016 ( N = 98)), and this correlation becomes non-significant after controlling for drug type ( P = 0.6 and P = 0.39 for antibiotics ( N = 60) and AMPs ( N = 38) respectively, Spearman’s correlation).

1D ), while NLRP6 expression was marginally significant (p = 0.016; Fig. 1E ).

However, an explicit test of H10 vs H00 for Ssa 197 was not significant ( P = 0.13), while an explicit test of H01 vs H00 for Ssa G7SP test was marginally significant ( P = 0.016), making it unlikely that selection had acted at these loci.

Specifically, alpha power showed a marginally significant decrease by the total KI score increase (t=-2.58, p=0.016), and the β/α ratio shown the opposite pattern (t=2.065, p=0.050).

Oblast‐level differences remained marginally significant in the adjusted models of EBF ( p = 0.016) and BoF ( p = 0.024), while the association with the mode of interview was no longer significant. 4 DISCUSSION Adequate nutrition in infancy and early childhood provides a foundation for children's subsequent growth and development (Olofin et al., 2013 ).

Nevertheless, after Bonferroni corrections (based on 9 pairwise tests), a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.016) appeared in the survival of R × S progenies between the two types of corn ( Table 1) .

However, we did find a marginally significant correlation of genome size with TE count ( P = 0.0165).

For the current analyses, we used the Brief COPE subscales showing negative, at least marginally significant, cross-sectional associations with psychopathological symptoms at baseline: active coping (AcC; r = −0.05, p = 0.017), emotional support (EmS; r = −0.04, p = 0.065), and positive reframing (PoR; r = −0.06, p = 0.013).

When Options 1 and 2 were combined (Model 1, Table 2 ), osteoporosis and social phobia showed a marginally significant difference in a logistic regression model adjusted for age at interview (p=0.017 and p=0.025, respectively).

15–20 years after colonization for each), we found significant differences in minimum frequency ( p = 0.006; estimate ± 95% CI = −0.04 ± 0.03; d ± 95% CI = 0.62 ± 0.44) and marginally significant differences in maximum frequency ( p = 0.017; estimate ± 95% CI = –0.025 ± 0.02; d ± 95% CI = 0.54 ± 0.44), but not frequency bandwidth ( p = 0.39; estimate ± 95% CI = 0.015 ± 0.03; d ± 95% CI = −0.19 ± 0.44) and not trill rate ( p = 0.45; estimate ± 95% CI = −0.63 ± 1.63; d ± 95% CI = −0.17 ± 0.44).

3G ), with VS showing significantly stronger responses in expert mice (naïve: 1.022% ± 0.366, expert: 1.701% ± 0.599; t (9) = 3.337, P = 0.009, Cohen’s d = 1.06), DLS demonstrating marginally significant preferential responses in experts (naïve: 0.546% ± 0.279; expert: 0.939% ± 0.328; two-tailed paired Student’s t- test: t (9) = 2.906, P = 0.017, Cohen’s d = 0.92), and DMS exhibiting stable responses during learning (naïve: 0.504% ± 0.255; expert: 0.625% ± 0.395; t (9) = 1.414, P = 0.191, Cohen’s d = 0.45), suggesting that the latter is less affected by association related to the olfactory stimulus as these associations developed during learning (statistical thresholds were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni-adjusted alpha levels of 0.0167 per test).

Effects for some anxiety indicators became non-significant after adjustment for QIDS score and only MASQ-AA became marginally significant ( P = 0.017) after adjustment for SSRI use, but all indicators remained significant when adjusting for BMI (all P -values <0.012) (Table S3 ).

However, the difference was marginally significant where the haplotype analysis was corrected for multiple testing with significant P<0.017.