“marginally significant”

Specifically, 32% of people reporting a positive test were hypertensive compared with only 11% of those with negative tests (p=0.03) and, marginally significant, 32% of those with a positive test result also reported either type 1 or type 2 diabetes compared with only 12% of those with a negative test (p=0.06).

They also found – although marginally significant - decreased ERN (p = 0.06) in BDs when compared with controls, indicating that the electrophysiological alterations observed in the previous study probably are common markers of BD and not gender specific.

The percentage tended to be higher in male than in female participants (marginally significant, p=0.06).

6A ) and running exerted a marginally significant inhibitory effect ( P = 0.06 for main effect of running), but there was no significant interaction effect ( P = 0.86).

There was also a marginally significant interaction effect between negative body image and weight status ( β = 0.67, p = 0.06) ( Table 2 ).

S2 ), and LNP participants showing a marginally significant decrease ( p = 0.06) (Fig. 6 b).

However, the interaction was marginally significant for task by block ( F [1.61] = 3.67, P = .060, η 2 = 0.06), suggesting that this result can be due to the performance from A1 to A4 in the virtual task (1161–889 ms, respectively) and not in the real task (193–154 ms, respectively), according to the post-hoc test. 3.4 Variable error The pattern of VEs during acquisition is depicted in Figure 6 .

RQ2: Changes in Participants’ Sedentary Behavior Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed a marginally significant decrease in daily sedentary time in group A ( Z =−11.50; P =.06) and no significant difference in daily sedentary time in group B ( Z =2.50; P =.59).

There was also a marginally significant difference (multivariable-adjusted p = 0.06) in EQ-5D VAS scores between older and younger adults ( Table 2 ).

These difference was significant ( p = 0.008) or marginally significant ( p = 0.06) in the experiment 2, which meant the interference of inter-character spaces and non-word spaces was appeared on the familiar format.

Similar to maternal influences, paternal behavioral control also served as a negative predictor of adolescent Internet addiction ( β = −0.20, p < 0.001, Cohen's f 2 = 0.04), while paternal psychological control showed a marginally significant positive prediction ( β = 0.04, p = 0.06, Cohen's f 2 = 0.002, see Table 2 ).

effect of the amplitude and stimulus type was not significant ( F (1,22) = 0.84, p = 0.54); the interaction effect of the amplitude and stimulus type and professional identity was not significant ( F (1,22) = 0.76, p = 0.59); and the interaction effect of stimulus type and professional identity was marginally significant ( F (1,22) = 3.94, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.15).

The SNP by SNP interaction on BDR was marginally significant for rs2781663 ( p = 0.06) and rs2781665 ( p = 0.06), and significant for rs185631674 ( p = 0.03).

A 2 × 3 mixed-modelANOVA on IQ showed that there was a marginally significant main effect of age ( p = .06) but no main effect of group ( p = .1) and no age × group interaction ( p = .8).

A marginally significant trend of increasing concentration was observed with decreasing age among applicator children (p = 0.060), and younger children within these families had significantly higher concentrations when compared to their older siblings (p = 0.040).

For each of these outcome measures, no significant effect of the overall time variable was seen for the whole study period, except for a marginally significant decrease in total treatment contacts ( p = 0.06) over time.

Pairwise post-hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons [ 36 ] revealed significantly reduced trabecular bone mineral density in ovariectomized (0.11±0.0088 g/cm 3 ; mean rank difference 9.0, p<0.001) and AP-treated groups (0.15±1.85 g/cm 3 ; mean rank difference 7.0, p<0.001) relative to sham (0.26±0.028 g/cm 3 ) but only a marginally significant difference between sham and the ALEN -treated ovariectomized rat values (0.19±0.0058 g/cm 3 ; mean rank difference 3.5, p=0.06).

In the analyses of separate SHMs, significantly elevated risks were found for ALL (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.21 to 8.17; P = 0.02) and NHL (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.62; P < 0.001); marginally significant was CML (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.97 to 3.00; P = 0.06) while differences in other SHMs were not significant (Table 2 ).

Follow-up simple main effect for group analysis revealed that there were no differences between the intervention group and waitlist control group at T1 (baseline), but a marginally significant difference at T2 (immediate intervention/s baseline assessment), F (1,194) = 3.66, p = 0.06, ⴄ p 2 = 0.019.

The main effect of prevalence rate was marginally significant ( F [1, 113] = 3.61, p = .06, μ p 2 = .031).

The interaction between Visual Cue Trustworthiness and Task Version was marginally significant ( F (1,268) = 3.62, p = 0.06).

The 2 × 2 ANOVA for the self-compassion measures, SCS-SF, revealed a marginally significant effect of group ( F (1,28) = 3.85, p = .06, ŋ 2 = .12) and a significant effect of time ( F (1,28) = 42.98, p < .001, ŋ 2 = .61).

The coefficient for Treatment was positive and marginally significant ( β = 1.05, SE = 0.56, Z = 1.88, p = 0.060), replicating the pattern in the 1-on-1 game, though the effect was weaker at the pair level.

However, the one-way ANOVA conducted on accuracy scores revealed a marginally significant effect of group ( p = 0.06) due to fact that the doubly low group displayed the lowest accuracy and differed from both the low-accuracy and the low-rate groups.

According to non-parametric tests for the data showing ceiling effects, the accuracy of the easier questions was significantly higher for the Note group than the Tablet group (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, W = 179, p = 0.04), and the difference between the Note and Device groups was marginally significant ( W = 164, p = 0.06).