“marginally significant”

Moreover, increasing age was a marginally significant predictive factor of OS ( P = 0.06).

A marginally significant difference was identified between these two correlation coefficients ( z = 1.88 , p = 0.06 ). 4 Discussion In the present study, direct gaze had a significant overall impact on the behavioral data in both groups.

The differences in Y variants between these samples were marginally significant ( p = 0.06) (Additional File 1 ).

Further analysis of the three way interaction revealed that the interaction between Type of deck and Laterality showed significant differences in different regions, i.e., the interaction was significant in the frontal ( p = 0.007) and central ( p = 0.009) regions and marginally significant in the parietal region ( p = 0.060).

Pz) was marginally significant, F (1,87) = 2.84, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.06.

Even if this result becomes marginally significant ( p = .06) when impulsivity-related variables are included in the regression model, it suggests that switching off FB-related notifications can constitute a protective factor against problematic use.

This comparison found that marginally significant blood pressure decreases were more pronounced in the haloperidol + benzodiazepine group compared to olanzapine + benzodiazepine recipients ( P = .06).

Assessing whether the correlations of the MM and the control groups were significantly different, we found the intergroup correlation coefficient difference to be marginally significant [two-tailed z = 1.88, P = 0.060, same statistical results for both the resting state variance and task peak-to-peak activity analyses].

In the modulation analysis using MMSE as outcome ( Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 4 ), a three-way interaction residual-based CR × brain-integrity-index × time was statistically significant using continuous operationalization ( p < 0.05), and marginally significant using categorical operationalization ( p = 0.06 for the middle tertile and p = 0.09 for the top tertile).

Between-group comparisons showed that at 1 month, the experimental group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in anxiety ( P = .03) and a marginally significant improvement in depression ( P = .06) compared to the control group.

Health self-efficacy improvement from baseline to 3 months was significant among younger participants in the intervention (p<.05) but not the control arm (p=.54) (d=.20) and marginally significant among older survivors (age 60+) in intervention (p=.06) but not the control arm (p=.58) (d=.28).

Findings point to a partial mediation with a significant direct effect (b = .37, SE = .16, p = .02, 95% bootstrap CI=[.07, .68]), a marginally significant indirect effect (b = .08, SE = .04, p = .06, 95% bootstrap CI=[-.003, .18]) and a significant total effect (b = .46, SE = .16, p < .001, 95% bootstrap CI=[.14, .77]).

Based on one-tailed tests, results showed greater positive change in working memory, t(57)=1.69, p<.05, for the literacy group relative to the control, and a marginally significant difference in change in episodic memory, t(57)=1.62, p<.06, but not in verbal fluency, t< 1.

A favorable pathological response showed marginally significant and no association with DSS and OS ( p = 0.06 and p = 0.2), respectively.

Effects of Mindfulness Training on Cortisol The CAR measured over 3 workdays showed a marginally significant Group*Time interaction, controlling for baseline CAR, cohort, gender, years of policing, smoking status, and BMI [ χ 2 (2, N =13)=5.55, p =0.06, η 2 =0.04; Figure 3 ; Table 2 ].

However, there was a marginally significant correlation between the non-DM ( P = 0.06) and non-smoking subgroups ( P = 0.06). 4 Discussion We have demonstrated that LDL-C/HDL-C and TC/HDL-C could be independent factors for predicting the presence of TCFA which means plaque vulnerability in CAD patients.

The initial decrement of tumor size was a marginally significant positive predictor for PFS (P = 0.06). 20 The maximal benefit was also reported in patients with a better ECOG performance status. 6 Our clinical experience obtained a similar finding.

We report significant ( P ≤ 0.05) and marginally significant (0.05 < P ≤ 0.06) effects of the models sequentially as the sentence unfolds over time.

Additionally, the effect of word type was marginally significant [F (1,48) = 3.87, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.07], with participants tending to respond more accurately to SN word pairs than to NN word pairs.

However, for conventional affective arousal index Aff(Ar.c) , the session × group interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 36) = 3.77, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.10).

frontalis ) and eastern Palearctic (with break at Lena River) grouped together and the western Palearctic as a second group; although it was marginally significant (Φ CT = 0.135, p = 0.06, Table 3 ).

A Bin (0–10 and 81–90) × Group ANOVA showed a marginally significant main effect of the factor Bin ( F (1,36) = 3.84, p = 0.06, ηp 2 = 0.10).

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 .

Comparative analysis indicated a marginally significant prolongation of first-line PFS in irradiated patients compared to non-irradiated patients (16.1 months vs. 7.8 months; P = 0.06) ( Figure 6A ).

A two-way ANOVA for RTs showed that the main effect of neighborhood size was not significant in participant analysis [F 1 (1,105) = 0.65, p = .42], and marginally significant in item analysis [F 2 (1,96) = 3.54, p = .06]; the main effect of grade was significant in both participant and item analysis [F 1 (2,105) = 3.56, p <.05; F 2 (2,96) = 4.92, p <.01], post hoc analysis showed that the 3 rd graders responded significantly slower than the other two groups ( ps <.05), and there was no remarkable difference between the 5 th and 7 th graders ( p >.1); the two-way interaction was significant in participant analysis [F 1 (2,105) = 8.08, p <.01], but non-significant in item analysis [F 2 (2,96) = 0.45, p = .64].