“marginally significant”

The difference between groups 2 and 3 was, however, marginally significant, P = 0.057 (Table 3 ). 10 months The groups from neurological assessments at 10 months CA did not differ on any kinematic variables; however, differences were found for aiming, F(3,53) = 3.107, P < 0.05 (Table 4 ).

Type 2 diabetes status was marginally significant (p = 0.0570).

The difference between the first two time windows was confirmed by a significant set-size by time interaction [ F (3,18) = 9.49, p = 0.01]; the difference in asymptote between the latter two time windows was suggested by a marginally significant interaction between time and set-sizes two and four [ F (1,6) = 5.51, p = 0.057].

This association became marginally significant when covariates were added (β = –5.3, p = 0.057).

The difference on FT3 between the subgroups with and without suicide attempts in the female group was not significant, F (1, 906) = 1.32, p = 0.25 > 0.05, η p 2 = 0.001; while the difference on FT3 in the male group was marginally significant, F (1, 906) = 3.62, p = 0.057 , η p 2 = 0.004.

The main effect of Gender was marginally significant for accuracy (F(1, 58) = 3.8, p = 0.057 [p = 0.062]).

The model exhibited marginally significant moderation effects (QM = 13.7, df = 7, P = 0.057) and accounted for all the between-study variance (100%).

Furthermore, the low‐dose group had a marginally significant change in the ADAS‐Cog score (adjusted P = .057).

OTA exposure was significantly associated with adverse birth outcomes, such as lower birth weight [β (95% CI): −0.11 kg (−0.21, 0.00); P = 0.042] and ponderal index [β (95% CI): −0.62 gm/cm 3 (−1.19, −0.05); P = 0.034], and a marginally significant lower length growth trajectories during the first 6 mo [β (95% CI): −0.08 cm/mo (−0.15, 0.0); P = 0.057].

We found a marginally significant difference in OS between genders (P=0.057) and between mutant and wild type TP53 (P=0.079).

The interaction between Congruency × Subgroup was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.78, p = 0.057, η 2 = 0.061, indicating that the congruency effect might differ systematically across the two masking conditions.

The negative link between backward scores and the DLQ was marginally significant ( r = –0.19, 95% CI = –0.37; –0.06, p = 0.057), suggesting that this WM measure may also be related to self-reported cognitive difficulties in everyday life.

Wife’s age at time of marriage, on the other hand, was a marginally significant, negative predictor of marriage duration (Wald’s χ 2 = 3.62, df = 1, p = 0.057).

ΔBMI had a significant main effect on Emotional Symptoms [F(1, 31) = 10.55, p = 0.003, ƞ 2 p = 0.254], and a marginally significant effect on Total score of SDQ [F(1, 31) = 3.892, p = 0.057, ƞ 2 p = 0.112], suggesting that participants with greater changes in BMI, regardless of whether these changes constituted an increase or decrease, showed different overall levels of psychological adjustment.

For belief in the paranormal, we found significant rationality × sample (β = .35, p = .003) and experientiality × sample interactions (β = −.24, p = .036), as well as a marginally significant CRT × sample interaction (β = .21, p = .057).

The timing of the event during the first trimester of pregnancy was marginally significant ( p = 0.057), and this effect was reduced substantially by the addition of gestational age to the model.

A Mann–Whitney U test on children’s matrix scores revealed a marginally significant group difference ( U = 370.5, z = –1.90, p = .057, r = –.24).

3b , most brain regions of the mentalizing network represent social congruency as revealed by r(same) being higher than r(diff), i.e., r(same) – r(diff) one sample t-test: PC marginally significant (p = 0.057; all p’s Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons, i.e., the number of ROIs), TPJ (p = 0.013) and posterior mPFC (p = 0.011) (see Fig. 3b ).

In Grade 1 tumors Ki67 based stratification (Table 1 ) was marginally significant (p = 0.057) whereas CAB risk stratification was significant ( p = 0.002) (Table 1 ).

Both main effects remained significant (β = −0.43, t (28) = −3.02, p = 0.005; β = −0.48 , t (28) = −3.17, p = 0.004, respectively), and the marginally significant interaction term, β = −0.30, t (28) = 1.99, p = 0.057, Δ R 2 = 0.06, confirmed that the effect of meditation experience was indeed somewhat different for participants with low vs high food-specific decentering scores.

However, this is only true when comparing the efficiency of difficult prey to other difficult prey (marginally significant Tukey HSD: p = 0.057).

Parasomnia, speech disorders, and cardiovascular disorders had higher RORs in women, while insomnia-related disorders, cognitive disorders, and movement disorders (marginally significant, p = 0.057) had higher RORs in men.

There was however a marginally significant negative correlation between participants’ scores on the non-planning factor of the BIS-11 and accuracy on the causal attribution task, r = −0.229, n = 70, p = 0.057.

Separate analyses for the two kinds of Spatial Frequency revealed that the difference between illiterates (1,027 ms) and literates (1,295 ms) was marginally significant for high-spatial-frequency faces, t (20) = −2.02, p = 0.057, d = 0.90, but significant distinction between illiterates (973 ms) and literates (956 ms) for low-spatial-frequency faces was not reached, t (20) = 0.177, p = 0.861, d = 0.08.

For all the eyes that were analyzed, the success rate at the final visit was 78% for the IVB group and 56% for the control group, which was marginally significant ( P = 0.057 by chi-square test).