“marginally significant”

Furthermore, a marginally significant effect of plant community richness on network–level specialization was observed ( p = 0.056) (Figure 6H , Table 3 ).

In terms of beta diversity, the change of the beta diversity metric from the beginning to the end of the shift among the pooled workers was marginally significant or significant (main effect of time p = 0.056 by PERMANOVA for Bray-Curtis and 0.014 for Jaccard).

No statistically significant differences were observed between values before or after the onset of the pandemic, although there was a marginally significant higher proportion of participants with decreases >2 in depressive scores (improvement) before than after the onset of the pandemic (22.7% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.056).

A Wilcoxon rank test of mutation rates per cell division between unicellular and multicellular eukaryotes was marginally significant when we excluded D. discoideum from the analysis (W = 3, p = 0.056).

In particular, the difference in loss of PTEN expression between SCLC and LCNEC was marginally significant (p=.056).

Marginally significant was the interaction Stimulus Type × Self Relevance × Electrode, F 8,192 = 2.42, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.09, because in some conditions power tended to be largest at AFz.

Accuracy rates For accuracy rates, the first model with age and retirement was marginally significant and explained 22.2% of the variance ( R2 = 0.222, adjusted R2 = 0.154, p = .056).

There was also a marginally significant partner association (B = 2.46, SE (B) = 1.27, Beta = 0.19, p = .056) between affection in the pleasant conversation and relationship satisfaction.

Pairwise comparisons revealed that participants in the GT group exhibited a significant reduction in T7-Fz connectivity from baseline to delayed retention ( p = .043), and a marginally significant reduction from baseline to retention ( p = .056).

The long-time scale MSE (MSE 11–20 ) was subject to a significant task effect ( F (1,26) = 5.58, p = 0.023, η 2 = 0.086) and a marginally significant interaction effect of task and group ( F (1,26) = 2.99, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.069), rather than group effect ( F (1,26) = 2.04, p = 0.165, η 2 = 0.027).

Donor age at or above 35 years and the presence of donor‐specific antibodies with a history of antibody‐mediated rejection (both p < 0.05) were associated with worse graft survival, while medication non‐adherence was associated despite being marginally significant ( p = 0.056).

The result of ANOVA indicated that flight duration was significantly different between female and male individuals (F: 4.84 ± 0.43 h ( n = 72); M: 3.31 ± 0.33 h ( n = 88); F 1,156 = 9.71, p = 0.002), but just a marginally significant difference between individuals at different ages ( F 2,156 = 2.94, p = 0.056) ( Figure 2 c,d).

The repeated measures ANOVA on distance (dist-0 through dist-5) showed a marginally significant main effect, F (4,92)=2.39, p =.056, ηp 2 =.09, which plateaued at the dist-2 location (Fig. 4 B).

Decreases between T4 and T COVID were marginally significant ( p = .056).

Though groups were relatively small in other studies, treatment responders showed significant rTMS-associated increases in left DLPFC tCho post treatment in one study ( p = .028, n = 6) ( Luborzewski et al., 2007 ) and a marginally significant increase of Cho/Cr in the left PFC in another study ( p = .056, n = 12 ( Zheng et al., 2010 ).

The results were consistent with those of the present study, suggesting lower NQ scores of children with increasing maternal BMI values, although the results were merely marginally significant ( P = 0.056) [ 10 ].

We found a marginally significant genotype x day interaction [F(7,238) = 2.00, p = 0.056], a treatment x day interaction [F(7,238) = 2.23, p = 0.032], no genotype x treatment interaction, a main effect of genotype [F(1,34) = 20.63, p < 0.001], no main effect of treatment, and a main effect of day [F(7,238) = 24.66, p < 0.001].

From the results of RTs, it was found that the main effect of group was marginally significant ( F (1, 77) = 3.779, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.047), with the RT of the LSA (54.03 ± 503.97) being significantly shorter than that of the HSA group (256.57 ± 439.37); the main effect of the congruency type was significant ( F (1, 77) = 61.604, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.444), and the RTs to congruent stimuli (110.56 ± 460.38) were significantly shorter than those to incongruent stimuli (200.04 ± 482.96).

Furthermore, the response time to fearful expressions showed a marginally significant increase in the MBCT group at the end of the study ( p = 0.056) ( Table 3 and Figure 3B ).

A marginally significant difference in reaction times was observed between groups ( p = 0.056), regardless of the condition, suggesting faster reaction times in the l-IPA group.

For lateral sites, the ANOVA results revealed a marginally significant main effect of Grammaticality ( F (1,35) = 3.917, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.101).

Notably, non-responders exhibited significantly higher LRPS expression compared with responders ( Supplementary Figure S5A ; Wilcoxon test, P = 0.015), while CCL20 showed a marginally significant upregulation trend in non-responders ( Supplementary Figure S5B ; Wilcoxon test, P = 0.056). 3.8 CCL20 promotes HCC cell proliferation, migration, invasion, and lactate production in vitro To elucidate the biological functions of CCL20 in HCC, we conducted a series of in vitro experiments using Hep3B and MHCC97H cell lines.

Post-hoc tests revealed a marginally significant difference between response times of the two Groups for asynchronous Stroking (independent samples t-test, t(22) = 2.0, p = .056).

For the right temporal and the right occipital cortex, marginally significant interactions were found in the delta band [ F (2, 79) = 2.985, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.070] and theta band [ F (2, 79) = 2.723, p = 0.072, η 2 = 0.064].

A marginally significant effect of condition, F (1,15) = 4.31, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.22, revealed higher hit rates when earn colors were presented first relative to when save colors were presented first, specifically at shorter onsets (8 ~ 38), F (1,15) = 4.81, p = 0.044, η 2 = 0.24, where onset information was limited (left panel, Fig. 4a ).