“marginally significant”

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.

A repeated measures analysis of variance showed a marginally significant main effect of time for the health distress items ( F 1,22 =4.080; P =.056; η 2 =0.156; power=0.489), indicating that overall, participants’ scores showed less health distress (ie, discouragement, fear, worry, and frustration) in their last assessment (mean 2.01, SD 0.81) than in their first assessment (mean 2.36, SD 1.24).

EMPA, in Omar et al.'s [ 14 ] study, showed a marginally significant reduction in mPAP during exercise (−2.37 mmHg, p = 0.056), suggesting a trend toward improvement.

p = 0.0043), whereas the difference in wrinkle volume was marginally significant ( adj . p = 0.056).

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 ].

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

A 6 (SNR) × 2 (group) mixed ANOVA on arcsine-transformed 22 accuracy revealed that older adults were less accurate than young adults irrespective of SNR ( F 1,30 =19.48, P <0.001), and accuracy increased with increasing SNR in both groups ( F 5,150 =399.10, P <0.001), with a marginally significant group × SNR interaction ( F 5,150 =2.21, P =0.056, Fig. 1b ).

Relationship between Facial Color Type and Hunting Behavior The proportion of facial color types differed marginally significant between the two types of hunting behaviors (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.056; Figure 5b ); the proportion of group-hunting species with A-type faces was higher than for species with other face types.

Phylogenetic Comparative Analyses We observed a significant phylogenetic signal for average infection load (P = 0.033), a marginally significant phylogenetic signal for hazard ratio (P = 0.056) and no significant phylogenetic signal for log response ratio (P = 0.118, Fig 3A–3C ; Table 1 ).

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).

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.

3 C; P = 0.003 and 0.0006, respectively), whereas that of GR was marginally significant (P = 0.056).

Replication number (i.e., whether the opponent, slavemaker, conspecific, or related species, was used on the first, second, or third time) was taken into account and was marginally significant ( F 2,81 = 3.00, P = 0.056), and none of its interactions with other factors were significant ( P > 0.1 for all interactions).

For hit rates, analyses on the matched set of items revealed a marginally significant interaction, F (1, 47) = 3.84, p = 0.056, η 2 p = 0.076, similar to the one observed with the full set of stimuli.

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).

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).

R0 resection was achieved in 86.3% of all cases; 87.9% of patients underwent primary surgery and 81.7% of those with neoadjuvant therapy, while the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.056).

There was a marginally significant interaction between the prognostic impact of a decrease in eGFR and the choice of diagnostic imaging modality (interaction-p = 0.056).

25 at the same coordinates, yielding a linear and marginally significant relationship (R 2 adj = 0.23; p = 0.056) with only one estimate as an outlier (Fig. 1C ).

Frequency of neighboring conspecifics had a marginally significant negative effect for all three groups (light demanding: P = 0.056; mid-tolerant: P = 0.063; shade-tolerant: P = 0.059).

The overall model was significant ( R 2 =.16, p = .043) and results suggest that the interaction term was marginally significant ( B = −0.03, SE =0.01, p = .056).

In the adjusted model, after controlling for confounders (age, BMI, physical activity, and total energy intake), there was a significant difference between the tertiles on the Bodily Pain subscale ( p = 0.024) and a marginally significant difference on the emotional role limitations subscale ( p = 0.056).

Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons revealed a significant jump in accuracy from the 33% intensity condition to the 50% intensity condition ( p < 0.001) and a marginally significant jump from the 50% intensity condition to the 67% intensity condition ( p = 0.056).

Without adjustment, food coverage practice had a marginally significant effect against faltering in girls ( p -value = 0.056).

We observed a marginally significant difference between the neutral-matched and neutral-nonmatched words (p = 0.056), with slightly faster RTs to the neutral-nonmatched words ( Table 2 ).