“marginally significant”

There was also a marginally significant main effect of Group on returns on previously found targets, F (1, 24) = 6.000, p = .022, due to children with FXS producing a larger number of these errors per hit (.131 ±.03 on average) than MA controls (.017 ±.03 on average).

In these patients there was improvement in and pain perception ( p = 0.006), and also a marginally significant improvement in elbow flexion ( p = 0.022) and the perimeter of the arm ( p = 0.050).

Similarly, the 8p23-inv global F st (0.218) is marginally significant compared with the null distribution ( P < 0.022) (Supplemental Fig.

Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that for the group without experience with the horse-riding dance, only RTs for MP5 showed significant or marginally significant differences from all the other MPs ( p = .022 for MP1, p = .052 for MP4, p = .001 for MP8; MP1, 382.88ms; MP4, 377.71ms; MP5, 396.51ms; MP8, 364.52ms), whereas the other three MPs did not.

The model demonstrated good discrimination (C-statistic = 0.72) with no global proportional hazards violation, although the cTOT variable showed a marginally significant time-dependent effect (Schoenfeld P = 0.022), consistent with a front-loaded benefit that attenuates as wounds approach complete healing.

One-sample t -tests revealed marginally significant signal changes for SON during EO ( t = 2.55, p = 0.022 uncorrected, p = 0.066 Bonferroni correction) and significant signal change for SON during EC ( t = 3.40, p = 0.004 uncorrected, p = 0.012 Bonferroni correction), and for FN and UN during EO ( t = 2.16, p = 0.046 uncorrected, t = 3.29, p = 0.005 uncorrected, p = 0.015 Bonferroni correction respectively) though not during EC.

Differences between the most recent pre-pandemic assessments and the latest sweeps (ages 50/64.5 in NCDS/58 and 46/52.5 in BCS/70) were not significant in NCDS/58 (B prepandemic_time_NCDS/58 = 0.01 [−0.07, 0.09], p = 0.791) and marginally significant and negative in BCS/70 (B prepandemic_time_BCS/70 = −0.08 [−0.15, −0.01], p = 0.022), in line with the notion of a “bounce back” to (or even slight improvement compared to) pre-pandemic levels.

After further adjustment for individual parental ages, the father-older association became non-significant (OR = 1.121, P = 0.420), while the mother-older association remained marginally significant (OR = 1.012, P = 0.022).

The correlation was found to be marginally significant after Bonferroni correction ( R = 0.78, p < 0.02242).

cornigera in the dry season and marginally significant in the rainy season ( A. cornigera – dry season: r = 0.51, P = 0.023, n = 17; A. cornigera – rainy season: r = 0.53, P = 0.073, n = 12; Pearson's correlation coefficient).

For the B2 outcome, the IVW method yielded a marginally significant p-value (p=0.023) for the number of cigarettes smoked per day, a finding corroborated by the MR-PRESSO (p=0.025 pre-outlier correction; p=0.029 post-outlier correction; S10 – S13 Figs and S20 Table ) [ 63 – 67 ].

Patients with AD had a marginally significant association between striatal SUR and total errors (rho = -0.445, p = 0.023), perseverative errors (rho = -0.416, p = 0.035), and categories completed (rho = -0.392, p = 0.048).

The difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.023). 2.3.

WAT ( P = 0.0084) and marginally significant in one additional species, Pn. pyralis ( P = 0.023, Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction P = 0.017; supplementary material S3.3, Supplementary Material online).

An ANOVA of the SPEED revealed a marginally significant main effect of emotional face [ F (2, 78) = 4.23, p = 0.023, η p 2 = 0.10], suggesting that the SPEED was lower for happy faces than for fearful and neutral faces.

Longer task-switch RT was significantly associated with increased caudate connectivity strength, while the correlation between switching cost and caudate connectivity strength was marginally significant (see Fig. 5 a and b; r = 0.308, p = 0.023; r = 0.267, p = 0.051).

Analysis of growth parameters over the entire trial duration indicated that only the PSPP_0.5 group exhibited a marginally significant improvement ( p = 0.023) in FCR compared to the control group, associated with a significant quadratic decrease.

Using Student's t-test revealed that all values are significantly different although for the plus-strand coded promoters (in Figure 5b ) the middle-range promoter-cis values (the 301–450 range promoters paired with the 301–450 range cis elements) have only a marginally significant (p-value = 0.023) difference when compared to the 601–750 range promoters paired with the 301–450 range cis elements (i.e. middle orange bar vs. the middle purple bar in Figure 5b ).

Patients who presented any or more of the symptoms of respiratory failure, ARDS, short of breath and dyspnea after operation were associated with significantly higher mortality ( r = 0.891, p < 0.001), while patients whose symptoms were presented as fever, cough, fatigue or myalgia only demonstrated marginally significant association with postoperative mortality ( r = 0.675, p = 0.023).

While the strongest association of allelic variation with plant height in the diversity panel was at Sb06g012260 itself ( P = 0.007), we also found a marginally significant association at Sb06g007330 ( P = 0.023), a putative cation efflux family protein.

3 A, p <0.001), while GGT level had an intermediate proportion of about 0.33%, which was marginally significant statistically ( Fig. 3 B, p = 0.024).

We found a marginally significant difference in LOS across the four seasons without adjustment (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.024) and after adjusting for potential confounders ( p = 0.018).

The interaction effect of the square of local conspecific colony density and local heterospecific ant density (biomass) was also marginally significant and positive (coefficient = 0.30, χ 2 = 5.10, df1, p = 0.024; Appendix S3 : Table S2 ).

S4 C, 30E012) indicate a marginally significant T 1 shift event ( P = 0.024).

Outcomes that maintained significant (or marginally significant) changes between baseline and post-intervention after controlling for adherence effects on change included: noticing ( d = 0.90; p = 0.024), attention regulation ( d = 1.38; p = 0.001), self-regulation ( d = 1.48; p < 0.001), body listening ( d = 0.77; p = 0.064), resilience ( d = 0.82; p = 0.088), perceived stress ( d = 1.42; p = 0.002), mindful self-care ( d = 1.01; p = 0.002), body appreciation ( d = 0.96; p = 0.005), intuitive eating ( d = 0.72; p = 0.050), LOCES ( d = 1.15; p = 0.002), and EDE-Q7 scores ( d = 0.61; p = 0.088).