“marginally significant”

For instance, BY carries a marginally significant excess of allelic singletons that confer resistance relative to the other three strains (Fisher's exact test, Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.06; Figure 3C ; Table 1 ).

The P ‐value was marginally significant (overall P = 0.06), suggesting the trends in Hispanics were borderline significantly different than the other races.

Larval dry weight: wet weight was significantly affected by CO 2 (p = 0.003, F 2 = 1.66) and the interaction between CO 2 and tide was marginally significant (p = 0.060, F 4 = 2.26).

However, sports participation exhibited a significant negative main effect (β20 = −0.4974 ± 0.2298, p < 0.05), while the interaction term between sports participation and age showed a marginally significant negative trend (β30 = −0.0965 ± 0.0517, p ≈ 0.06).

Of these 114 genes, 27 had an identified IRP2 peak in our data, an overlap that is marginally significant ( P = 0.06, Fisher’s Exact Test).

Results: Twenty-three patients (76.5%) and 15 controls (50 %) showed hypoechogenicity of RN, which was marginally significant (P=0.06).

When considering data from glaucoma patients only, we found a marginally significant structure–function correlation ( r = −0.53, P = 0.060).

Furthermore, after controlling for total number of depressive episodes and comorbid diagnoses, bipolar patients trended towards greater improvement in depressive symptoms compared with unipolar patients while the interaction effect is marginally significant (F=2.86, p=0.06, partial eta square=0.04, Figure 2 ).

A significant quadratic CS X phase interaction [ F (1,58) = 7.23, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.11 ] and a marginally significant quadratic group X phase interaction [ F (2,58) = 2.90, p = .06, η p 2 = 0.09 ] were also observed.

Attention and processing speed The number of commission errors on the CPT was lower at post-treatment compared to baseline for both groups, represented by a marginally significant main effect of time ( F (1,16) = 3.9, p = .06, η 2 p = .199).

After adjusting for age in Cox regression analysis, the association between TOP2A deletion and time to recurrence remains strongly significant (p-value = 0.002) whereas the association with survival is marginally significant (p-value = 0.06).

In the comparison between the footballers and control groups, the statistically significant differences were found in the following variables: in the BMI (Mann–Whitney = 512.5, p < 0.05), being higher in the footballer than in control condition with a moderate to high effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.65 (r = 0.31); in Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Global score) (Mann–Whitney = 492, p < 0.00), being higher in the footballer than in the control condition with a very high effect size, Cohen’s d = 2.3 (r = 0.75) and marginally significant in the Positive subscale (Mann-Whitney = 607, p = 0.06), being higher in the footballer than in control condition and there was a small to moderate to high effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.48 (r = 0.23); and in the Subscale 1 of the CAP (Mann–Whitney = 547, p < 0.05), being higher in the footballer than in the control condition with a small to moderate to high effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.52 (r = 0.25) ( Table 5 ).

A post-hoc t -test comparing the two groups at follow-up was marginally significant, t (38) = 1.94, p = .06.

t, both p < 0.005, suggesting an “all or nothing” attitude toward compliance), individualistic reasons for compliance (while collectivist reasons for compliance were strongly and positively associated with trust, p < 0.001), educational level, time of data collection, and age (the last one showed a marginally significant negative correlation, β = −0.018, p = 0.06).

A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that the main effect of self-control resources was marginally significant, F (1, 68) = 3.78, p = .06.

A marginally significant main effect of tDCS condition was found on overall RTs at recognition ( F (2,20) = 3.2, P = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.24), but not of stimulus familiarity ( F (1,10) = 1.5, P >0.1, η p 2 = 0.13) or interaction ( F (2,20) = 0.64, P >0.1, η p 2 = 0.06).

There are marginally significant differences in the number of female flowers between the distal half (1.2 ± 1.1; mean ± SD) and the proximal half (3.3 ± 3.4; P = 0.06) of the inflorescence.

The ANOVA regarding SD1 values showed a marginally significant effects of condition (F (1,24) = 3.9; p = 0.06, Greenhouse-Geisser corrected) and repetition (F (1,24) = 3.3; p = 0.06, Greenhouse-Geisser corrected).

Notably, we observed a significant difference in species richness (number of species) in CRC patients compared to controls (b = 4.19, 95 % CI: (1.51, 6.86), p = 2.20e-03) and a marginally significant difference in species diversity (Shannon entropy) (b = 0.07, 95 % CI: (-2.62e-03, 0.14), p = 0.06).

Nonetheless, the total effect was marginally significant ( b = −0.39; β = −0.10; 95% CI [−0.21–0.01], SE = 0.20, p = 0.06), which suggests the indirect and direct pathways accounted for variance in treatment-seeking intention to a small degree. 1 Discussion The current study examined the association between mental illness self-stigma, externalizing proneness, and the intention to seek treatment.

2 , follow-up contrasts with Tukey HSD correction for multiple comparisons confirmed that all devices captured significantly different levels of amplitude (marginally significant when comparing baseline versus headset: M Headset = 59.73 dB, M Baseline = 57.67 dB, t = 2.73, p = .06).

However, there was a marginally significant difference in SART reaction times (seconds) between T1 ( M = 0.37, SE = 0.008) and T2 ( M = 0.39, SE = 0.009), F (1, 48) = 3.60, p = 0.06, with the means indicating that the participants were slower on the SART task post-training. 4 Discussion AI-related technologies are developed with the goal of augmenting and improving human efficiency.

Marginally significant correlations were observed between apoM and pentraxin-3 ( r = 0.18, P = 0.06; Fig. 3d ).

There was also a marginally significant improvement in the 6 min run test, with the distance covered increasing from 943.88 ± 195.19 to 959.73 ± 234.02 m ( p = 0.06). 4.

Results and Discussion An analysis of variance (ANOVA) on word/non-word (W+ versus W-) and phonological similarity to Chinese (C+ versus C-) revealed a marginally significant effect of word ( M w+ = 5.74, SD = 1.60, and M w - = 5.15, SD = 1.91); F (1,35) = 3.70, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.10; a significant effect of phonological similarity ( M c+ = 6.28, SD = 1.53 and M c - = 4.61, SD = 1.64), F (1,35) = 59.32, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.63; and a significant word by phonological similarity interaction, F (1,35) = 7.18, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.17.