“marginally significant”

This analysis revealed a marginally significant effect of the moderator (group) on the relationship between urinary interoception and chronic pelvic pain (Estimate: -0.00440 (SE = 0.00228, Z = -1.93, p = 0.054).

N170 Amplitude The ANOVA for N170 peak amplitude ( Table 4 and Figure 5 ) also showed a significant main effect of emotion types [ F (1,44)=6.62, p =0.014, η 2 =0.13] and a marginally significant four-way interaction among emotion type, cue validity, electrode location, and age [ F (1,44)=3.93, p =0.054, η 2 =0.08].

Additionally, a marginally significant negative correlation between the number of correct object–position associations and age was found in DAD participants (r = −0.234, p = 0.054).

The correlation was marginally significant (r = 0.350, n = 31, p = 0.054) with a tendency for higher composite z-scores for MBT to correspond with longer latencies of rats to approach food in the center of the NSF ( Figure 5G ).

Rats in the second iteration showed a similar, although marginally significant pattern (AB+ vs A−, t (7) = 2.32, p = 0.054, Cohen's d = 0.82; AB+ vs B−, t (7) = 2.36, p = 0.050, Cohen's d = 0.84).

For males, marginally significant differences were observed for personal distress, t (62.7) = 1.96, p = 0.054, Cohen’s d = 0.47, and perspective taking, t (63.3) = 1.97, p = 0.054, Cohen’s d = 0.47.

Meanwhile, the difference in cognitive functioning was marginally significant (CF, p = 0.054).

This was mainly due to “epileptiform EEG abnormalities” (regression coefficient β1 = 1.6; odds ratio = 5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–22.1; p = 0.03) and “cranial bone fractures” (regression coefficient β2 = 3.4; odds ratio = 30.3 with 95% CI 2.8–325.8; p = 0.005), while “history of previous AWS” was marginally significant (regression coefficient β3 = 1; odds ratio = 2.6, 95% CI 0.98–7; p = 0.054).

The proportion of individual nonselective deposit feeders also showed a positive relationship with increasing latitude that was statistically marginally significant ( r = .266, p = .054, data not shown).

For the modern transect, throat scores likewise differed significantly between zones C and D ( p < .001), but there were also significant differences within species: a marginally significant difference between zones A and B ( p = .054) in C. colliei and a highly significant difference between zones D and E ( p < .001; Table 1 ) in C. formosa .

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

This difference in vmPFC value signal did not arise because of the difference in learning performance: when we restricted our analysis to high performers as defined by a median split (13 old, 15 young), a difference in performance was no longer significant (p=0.60), but the strength of expected-value signal in vmPFC was correlated with age (r(26) = −0.39, p=0.040) and we found a marginally significant difference between age groups (M old = 4.21, SD = 4.81; M young = 8.29, SD = 5.72; t(26) = 2.03, p=0.054).

3 Results 3.1 Impacts of ecosystem engineers on the growth of associated plants The microhabitat type had significant effects (marginally significant for L. longifolium in the DML population; P = 0.054) on both individual height and mass for all study species in all populations, except for L. perenne mass parameters in the YLS population ( Table 1 ; Figure 2 ).

A three-way repeated measures ANOVA including the motion type, adaptation duration and ISI as factors, reported a significant effect of adaptation duration ( F 2,28 = 7.55, p = 0.002, partial-η 2 = 0.35), ISI ( F 4,56 = 10.654, p < 0.001, partial-η 2 = 0.432) and a marginally significant effect of the motion type ( F 1,14 = 4.43, p = 0.054, partial-η 2 = 0.240).

There were marginally significant improvements in DCP (M = −0.24 ± 0.55, p = 0.054) and SDSCA (M = 1.41 ± 3.49, p = 0.072) scores in the SSG but not in the control group (M = −0.12 ± 0.80, p = 0.621, and M = 2.27 ± 6.62, p = 0.281, resp.). 4.

A non-parametric independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test (essentially a non-parametric one-way ANOVA) was marginally significant at the omnibus level for publications with undergraduates in general, H (4) = 9.28, p = .054, and significant at the omnibus level for publications with undergraduates as first author, H (4) = 12.24, p = .02.

4 When breaking trials down by the first versus second half of the experiment, we observed a marginally significant main interaction between room condition and image position at encoding, F (2, 198) = 2.96, p = 0.054, and a marginally significant three-way interaction, F (2, 198) = 2.79, p = 0.064.

However, compost type exhibited a marginally significant effect on nosZ clade II ( p = 0.054), with the relative abundance in SA being higher in BM than in M treatment ( p < 0.05). 4 Discussion Compared to M, BM has been found to reduce CO 2 and N 2 O emissions; yet the degree in reduction is soil-texture dependent ( Gao et al., 2023 ; Yuan et al., 2017 ).

The main effect of STN-DBS was marginally significant [ F (1,63) = 3.85, p = 0.054], with patients on DBS showing a higher drift rate.

the lowest three quartiles combined was not significant ( P =0·08) and any TF consumption in the past day was marginally significant ( P =0·054), but both were suggestive of a tendency for a lower odds of glucose intolerance ( Table 3 , model 1).

(2013 ) were marginally significant in our data set (p-values = 0.054 and 0.056).

A marginally significant difference was observed in the LF/HF band [F(2,102) = 2.995, p = 0.054, ηp 2 = 0.055, observed power = 0.570] in the frequency domain, and a significant difference was observed in the SD1/SD2 band [F(2,102) = 4.291, p = 0.016, ηp 2 = 0.078, observed power = 0.736] of the nonlinear measure before, during, and after periods of standardized error during the competition.

In relation to left insular cortex, family CPS involvement remained marginally significant (ß = −.22, p = .054), while maternal childhood neglect was non‐significant (ß = −.09, p = .46).

The interaction between Time and Group was marginally significant, F (1, 60) = 3.87, p = 0.054, η 2 p = 0.061.

A 2 × 3 analysis of variance showed no main effect of pain group, F (2,1520) = 1.42, P = 0.243, a marginally significant effect of sex, F (1,1520) = 3.70, P = 0.054, where females (mean = 24.73, SD = 18.47) scored slightly higher than males (mean = 23.03, SD = 16.02), and no interaction, F (2,1520) = 1.48, P = 0.229. 3.3.