“marginally significant”

Differences between post-program and follow-up are marginally significant ( b = 0.13, SE = 0.057, p = .056), showing a slight increase.

A weak positive correlation was found between lecturer's perceived competency and emotions of threat [ r (238) = -.248 p < 0.01] and a marginally significant correlation was found with failure [ r (238) = -.124 p = 0.056].

In the multivariable models, the following state-level variables were significantly associated with changes in VCR: Influenza: percentage of adults who report participating in any physical activity (p = .01) Pneumococcal: percentage of adults who report not seeing a doctor in the past 12 months because of cost (p = .02) HZ: health homes (p = .04); percentage of adults who report participating in any physical activity or exercise (p = .01); percentage of adults who report not seeing a doctor in past 12 months because of cost (marginally significant, p = .056) Tetanus: none Conclusion Few state-level variables demonstrated an association with changes in VCR but some significant findings were observed in final models.

Female first-person narrators (ie, the patient) were more likely to report mental status change (56.3%, 27/48) than male first-person narrators (36.4%, 16/44), a marginally significant effect by logistic regression ( P =.056), whereas reports of third-person narrators did not differ for women (27.9%, 12/43) and men (28.2%, 11/39) patients.

The ADE and total effect were found to be marginally significant ( P = 0.056 and P = 0.064, respectively).

The model was marginally significant (F (1, 261) = 3.684, p < 0.056) with a slight negative correlation (adjusted R 2 = 0.010).

arabiensis fed on day 21 after treatment died within 12 days and the effect was marginally significant ( F = 3.6, P = 0.056) compared to control (Table 3 ).

The three-way interaction was marginally significant, F (3,72) = 2.641, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.099.

Pairwise comparisons of studies assessing beliefs and studies assessing religious behaviors yielded marginally significant differences ( Q = 3.64, df = 1; p = .056).

The compatibility effects were significant for all duration conditions except the 64-ms condition: for the 16-ms condition, compatibility effect = –10 ms, t (52) = 3.36, p = .001; for the 32-ms condition, compatibility effect = –14 ms, t (52) = 3.35, p = .002; for the 48-ms condition, compatibility effect = a marginally significant –10 ms, t (52) = 1.96, p = .056; for the 80-ms condition, compatibility effect = 11 ms, t (52) = –2.03, p = .047; for the 96-ms condition, compatibility effect = 16 ms, t (52) = –2.73, p = .009.

From the posthoc comparisons, a marginally significant difference was observed between the positive and neutral doctor–patient relationship stimuli ( p = 0.056; Fig. 2 ): the positive doctor–patient relationship stimuli (1.69 ± 3.45 μV) elicited a more positive P2 than the neutral ones (0.89 ± 3.62 μV).

We only found a marginally significant effect of stimulation condition [ F (1,394) = 3.66, p = 0.056] and a significant effect of sleep stage [ F (5,394) = 1506.97, p < 2e-16].

Regarding Wingate peak power, the pooled estimate including pre-post data of all IF interventions was marginally significant (k = 3; SMD = 0.758 (95% CI [−0.019, 1.535], p = 0.056; Q = 113.389, p < 0.001; I 2 = 98%). 3.4.2.

The difference in retention rates at month one was marginally significant ( P = 0.056), while those at month 6 ( P = 0.025) and month 12 ( P = 0.005) were statistically significant. 3.3.

Interestingly, we furthermore found a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.056) of group and musical rhythm perception ability to account for reading ability.

For miR-132, there was a marginally significant effect ( m = .06 ± .02 for young fathers, m = .045 ± .02 for old fathers, p = .056); for miR-134, a significant effect was detected ( m = .0012 ± .0007 for young fathers, m = .0006 ± .0003 for old fathers, p = .004) (see Fig. 2 ).

When data from MMSE was used, the pooled effect size was marginally significant (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI, −0.02 to 1.32; p = 0.056; I 2 = 89.9%).

Moreover, the decrease of total testosterone in the synbiotic group was marginally significant compared to the control group (−3.38±20.20 vs. +2.33±12.79, P =0.056).

Psychopathy In the German male sample, overall emotion recognition ability showed a marginally significant interaction effect with psychopathy in predicting emotionally manipulative tactics [ B = 1.57, SE = 0.81, F (1,61) = 3.80, Δ R 2 = 0.04, p = 0.056, 95% CI (−0.04; 3.18)].

The correlation with use of sleep medication was small and marginally significant ( r = 0.094, p = 0.056).

Flax-seeds were more frequently consumed in the n -6/ n -3 < 10 group but the differences were marginally significant ( p = 0.056) and no other differences were observed.

Personal Event Mann–Whitney U -tests on free recall performance revealed significant differences for two periods: recent past ( z = 2.93, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.25), near future ( z = 2.41, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.18) and a marginally significant effect for the distant future ( z = 1.95, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.11).

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).

There was a marginally significant difference [t(7) = 2.290, p = 0.056].

In contrast, statistically marginally significant differences were found in LDL-C levels (P=0.056), and no statistically significant differences were observed in TC and HDL-C levels (in females) (P>0.1).