“marginally significant”

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).

The average path length was marginally significant after correction (adjusted p -value = 0.056).

The difference between the Canvac R® singles dose and the Nobivac® Rabies vaccine groups was also marginally significant with p=0.056.

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

The difference in d′ among the five groups who had to retain memory for some duration (12 hours or more) was marginally significant ( F (4,75) = 2.42, MS e = 0.242, p = 0.056), with the largest pairwise difference in d′ between the PM–AM and PM–PM groups ( Fig. 5A ).

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.

On the central electrode (Cz), there was a marginally significant main effect of gender ( F (1, 26) = 4.01, P = .056), that is, females showed stronger responses (−6.495 μ V) than males (−4.212 μ V). 3.2.3.

There was also a marginally significant difference between Generation X and Silents ( p = .056, d = .262) and between Baby Boomers and Silents ( p = .048, d = .247), while the difference between Generation X and Baby Boomers was not significant ( p = .994; d = .01).

Note that the divergent modules only contained a marginally significant number of synaptic pathways (per module) compared to the non-significant modules ( p = 0.0561).

This relationship was marginally significant when the mean number of reported host families was considered (24 vs. 11.4 reported host families, p = .0561).

The results showed marginally significant differences between UK and Brazilian dogs (β = −0.0511 ± 0.0262, p = 0.0561), suggesting that work-type location does have a weak effect on telomere length.

A marginally significant effect of sex was observed ( p = 0.0561), with male dogs tending to perform this behaviour more frequently than females.

The direct effect on ADL was marginally significant (ADE = 52.22, p = 0.0562), while that on NPI‐Q was not significant (ADE = 24.03, p = 0.5052).

The diversity difference between the two treatment diets was marginally significant in OW dogs ( P = 0.0562) but not in LN dogs ( P = 0.7402), suggesting greater dietary effects on OW dogs than on LN dogs.

Participants in the PD-MCI group also showed a marginally significant trend toward less time spent in State 3 relative to the HC group (p = 0.0562, t = 1.98) and significantly less time than the PD-NC (p = 0.0160, t = 2.55) group.

Finally, asymptotic performance improved from Day 1 to Day 2, evidenced by a significant reduction in asymptotic error in the one-state SSM (t 23 = 2.83, p = 0.0095, d = 0.58), and a marginally significant reduction in the two-state SSM (t 23 = 2.01, p = 0.0563, d = 0.41).

The PHQ-9 itself showed a positive, albeit marginally significant effect on social contact levels (PHQ-9: .7282, p = .0563).

In 2012, a marginally significant (slightly above the prescribed level of significance, p = 0.0565) but relevant difference was found in the abundance of C. subzerafae between male and female siblings.

Apart from rs7665116 in the transcribed region of the PGC-1α gene, SNP rs2970870, located in the promoter region, showed a marginally significant effect on the HD AAO in the first analysis of covariance (P = 0.0566; Table 1 ).

The Friedman test showed a marginally significant difference among four conditions ( p = 0.0567).

A two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) on age group (3) as a between-participants factor × stimulus condition (2) as a within-participants factor revealed a significant main effect of condition [ F (1, 2) = 0.505, p = 0.0385] and marginally significant interactions between the two factors [ F (2, 53) = 3.154, p = 0.0568].

Interestingly, in both Aymara and Quechua, when compared to the standard demographic model, Tajima’s D values are marginally significant (P values = 0.0568 and 0.0565, S2C Fig ) around chr10:82.0~82.3 Mb, and Fay and Wu’s H values are significant in both highlander groups in the same region (P values = 0.014 and 0.0212, S2D Fig ).

On the other hand, there was only a marginally significant association between SUVmax and pMAPK positivity (p = 0.0568).

In addition, marginally significant differences were observed in the elements of “Selecting and communicating option” (p = 0.0569), and “Communication and teamwork” (p = 0.0622).

Interestingly, NanoSight quantitation revealed that HPSC cells secrete more sEVs (mean conc.4.75 × 10 10 particles/ml) compared to HPaStec cells (mean conc.1.35 × 10 10 particles/ml) from the equal number of cells seeded in an equal volume of CM which is marginally significant ( p = 0.0569) ( Table 1 ).