“marginally significant”

At the T3 follow-up assessment (12 weeks after baseline), only HOP effects on stigma stress, on disclosure attitudes at work and on secrecy remained significant, with effects on overall quality of life remaining marginally significant ( p = 0.055, Table 4 ).

Furthermore, the MANCOVA on the same aPET ROI and the bilateral OFC fNIRS revealed a significant group effect [ F (6, 174) = 6.64, p < .001], leading to a significant effect on amyloid PET [ F (3, 88) = 11.46, p < .001] and a marginally significant effect on fNIRS [ F (3, 88) = 2.63, p = .055], Overall, Fig 6 shows that the amyloid PET signal tends to better differentiate the AD group from others, and the fNIRS signal tends to differentiate the SMI group from the other groups. fNIRS and anatomical measures When the LME model was fitted to the anatomical measures, no significant correlation between the fNIRS ROIs and gray volume or cortical thickness was found above and beyond what the group difference could explain.

After accounting for sex and years since training, a statistically significant association was not found between specialty (general internist vs subspecialist) and self-rated competence in medical interviewing ( P = .162), and a marginally significant association was found between years since training (ie, more than one year) and self-rated competence ( P = .055).

1 ) showed that maternal depression had a significant positive effect on negative parenting styles (β = 0.64, p < 0.001).Concurrently,negative parenting styles had a significant negative effect on toddlers' emotional competence (β = −0.51, p < 0.001),while the direct effect of maternal depression on emotional competence was marginally significant (β = −0.12, p = 0.055).To test the significance of the mediating effect,we used the bias-corrected bootstrap method with 5000 resamples to generate 95% confidence intervals (CI).The results showed that the indirect effect through negative parenting styles was −0.33,95% CI [−0.42,−0.23].As the confidence interval did not include zero,this indirect effect is statistically significant.

Consistent with previous results regarding the UG and the DG, we found a marginally significant main effect for the Game: F (1, 90) = 3.78, p = 0.055, η 2 p = 0.04, indicating that the proportion of equal split offers was higher for UG participants ( M = 70.0%, SD = 40.9) compared to DG participants ( M = 55.1%, SD = 45.9).

Flow did not mediate the relationship between grit and any of the outcomes ( p > 0.05) and is marginally significant for the relationship between flow metacognition and burnout [ b = −0.12, SE = 0.06, p = 0.055, 95% CI (−0.22, −0.02), β = −0.09].

In terms of infant birth weight, higher prenatal maternal anxiety was significantly associated with lower infant birth weight for male infants (β = −0.230, SE = 0.101, p = .022) and marginally significant for female infants (β = −0.223, SE = 0.117, p = .055).

Savings and insurance also have some substitutional relationship, with the protective effect of savings in households without commercial insurance being 1.7 times that in households with commercial insurance, with marginally significant between-group differences ( p = 0.055).

dolichurus ), the result was marginally significant ( rho = 0.447, P = 0.055).

Demographic characteristics Demographic characteristics, entered in step 1 of the regression, significantly predicted COVID Stress Scales scores, except for worry about the socioeconomic impact of COVID‐19, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.055).

In other words, we found that monkeys' preference toward a particular color was marginally significant at the group level [Two-way ANOVA, F (3) = 2.59, p = 0.055] ( Figure 4H ).

There was also a marginally significant correlation between the estimated effect size of these SNPs on birth length and the reported effect size on adult height (Pearson’s ρ = 0.073, p = 0.055).

In contrast, treatment with BVZ alone relative to H+BVZ shows that the effect of BVZ was stronger than the effect of hypoxia, resulting in a marginally significant increase in IL-1β levels in BVZ alone ( p = 0.055).

However, we retained two marginally significant effects, one for A on GCSE scores (β = .16, p = .055) and the quadratic effect of S on preclinical knowledge in years I and 2 (β = −.12, p = .068).

No other SNPs previously reported to show association could be confirmed in this population, with the possible exceptions of rs11200638 (G>A) in HTRA1 and the LOC387715 SNP rs10490924, which show marginally significant associations with DR (allelic P = 0.055 and P = 0.07, respectively).

For the neutral group, there was a marginally significant interaction between location and training, F (1,15) = 4.339, P = 0.055, and η p 2 = 0.224, due to greater learning at the trained than at the untrained location.

Model results showed no significant total and direct effects (β = 0.08, p > 0.10; β = 0.08, p > 0.10, respectively), however, the indirect effect from intervention to ESI kindergarten via spring EF and spring task behavior in preschool was marginally significant (β = 0.004, p = 0.055) (see Figure 4 ).

Following adjustment for energy intake, the association was attenuated for the composite score and was marginally significant for the language domain (p = 0.055), but remained significant for memory and visuospatial domains.

The association between LMR and PFS in patients with IPI score ≥2 was marginally significant in overall patients ( P = 0.055, Fig. 3H ), but not in the testing set ( P = 0.137, Fig. 3D ).

Uncontrolled extracranial disease and receipt of repeat brain irradiation (with WBI or Gamma-knife) for brain recurrence were marginally significant in multivariate analysis of BCrec ( P = 0.055 and P = 0.050).

The main effect of Age band (p=0.020) has to be considered in light with the marginally significant Group ×Age band interaction [χ 2 (1)=3.67, p=0.055, R 2 m = .021].

Gender by stress was marginally significant ( p = 0.055) with females having higher levels of stress.

However, the heavier the mother the faster was the rate of growth of its offspring, this effect was marginally significant (mother weight = 0.006, se = 0.003, p = 0.055, Table 3 ).

As shown in Figure 3D , both the 1st (blue) and 2nd (red) item reactivations correlated with the recency effect (horizontal lines, blue for the 1st item and red for the 2nd item), but at different time (marginally significant, 1st item: 0.65–0.72 s, corrected cluster p = 0.055, blue shades; 2nd item: 0.4–0.5 s, corrected cluster p = 0.038, red shades) (see the raw correlation coefficient time course in Figure 3—figure supplement 1A ).

Axis I diagnosis was also different between the restrained and unrestrained groups ( Table 3 ) (p=0.006).Patients with methamphetamine induced psychotic disorder(MIP) were more frequently restrained (OR relative to any other Axis I disorder=1.61, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.46),followed by the patients with BID/manic episode (OR relative to Axis I disorders other than MIP= 1.57, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.33), and the patients with a depressive episode were less frequently restrained than other patients (OR=0.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.65). There was a marginally significant difference in Axis II diagnosis between the two groups(p=0.055).