“marginally significant”

Compared with participants in the Control arm, those in the Resilience arm reported greater increases in personal resilience post-intervention ( p = 0.02, ES = 0.20, small level) and marginally significant increases at the 3-month ( p = 0.06, ES = 0.20, small level) and 6-month follow-ups ( p = 0.08, ES = 0.22, close to medium level; Figure 4 ).

However, a marginally significant relationship was observed between SRT and SQR benefits under the slow DRC condition, r (31) = .33, p = .06.

Differences betweeen groups were marginally significant (X 2 3 =7.3; P =.06).

There was a marginally significant difference in circulating T between species ( F 1,21 =3.82, P =0.06) and a significant difference in circulating T across breeding stages ( F 1,21 =4.84, P =0.04).

Unlike the objective measures, in the case of the VAS of the operated hand and the mental domain of the SF‐12, there was a significant effect of treatment and no effect of carryover, however, this conclusion should be cautiously interpreted and needs further investigation, as the carryover effect was marginally significant ( P = 0.06 and P = 0.09 respectively).

Open eyes: The analyses revealed a marginally significant orientation effect [F(1,13) = 4.01, p < .06, η p 2 = .24, observed power = .46], with faster RTs for upright than inverted faces.

However, the hypothesized negative association between relatedness need satisfaction and social media addiction was marginally significant ( p = 0.06), and Hypothesis 5 was not supported.

The relation of attentional control to reading comprehension was marginally significant (0.19, p = 0.06) after controlling for short-term memory, decoding, vocabulary, and inference.

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).

When the controls (no exposure) were deleted and the data set was analyzed as a three-factor experiment, there was only a marginally significant effect of parasite source on hemocyte count ( F = 3.69, d.f. = 1, 40, P = 0.06); no other effects or interactions were significant (Fig. 3 , Table 3 ).

AT pairs were correlated in all regions ( P < 0.03), except that the correlation in CpG island was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

A three-factorial ANOVA with PL, RL, and OTL as between-subjects factors revealed a main effect of PL, F (1,145) = 15.78, p < 0.01, MSe = 30491, η 2 = 0.10 ( M = 89 ms for low PL and M = 201 ms for high PL), and a marginally significant effect of RL, F (1,145) = 3.63, p = 0.06, MSe = 30491, η 2 = 0.02 ( M = 118 ms for low RL and M = 172 ms for high RL).

Both small (size< 3.2 cm) and large (size≥3.2 cm) tumor subgroups in our study showed decreased recurrence-free survival in high-lesion-contrast tumors (conspicuity score ≥ 2) compared with those of low lesion contrast (conspicuity score < 2)( p = 0.04), although the small tumor subgroup showed marginally significant results ( p = 0.06, Supplementary Figure 1 ).

Regarding t2, only a marginally significant difference between the depressed participants ( M = 5.90, SD = 2.05) and healthy controls could be shown, t (110) = 1.54, p = 0.06, d = 0.29.

Similarly, children of caregivers who received ≥2 MNP distributions had a significantly lower risk of having anemia in both districts, and receipt of nutritious flour for children or pregnant women in the last 12 mo was also associated with a marginally significant decreased risk of having anemia in Achham ( P = 0.06).

As the moderation was significant for gathering in groups ( F (3, 1865) = 6.80, p = 0.0001) and marginally significant for non-essential travel ( F (3, 1857) = 2.37, p = 0.06), considering norms and civic duty together for these two behaviors explains more of the variation around rule-breaking than considering them separately.

The effect of Domain was marginally significant ( F (1,96) = 3.6, P = .06); post hoc analysis showed a tendency to better naming of the NLT with respect to the LT ( M = 44% versus M = 32%, for NLT and LT, resp.).

Conversely, each unit increase in FT4 level showed a marginally significant higher risk [1.06 (0.99-1.13); p-value=0.06].

An independent t -test on three incentive conditions showed that RTs in the MA group were significantly fast than those in the HC group in the potential reward [ t (37) = 2.25, p < 0.05] and neutral conditions [ t (37) = 2.33, p < 0.05]; the group difference in RTs was marginally significant in the potential punishment condition [ t (37) = 1.96, p = 0.06].

A similar HLM for response latency yielded a main effect for consistency, b = 0.33 ( SE = 0.03), t (7268) = 9.89, and p < 0.0001, a marginally significant main effect of consensus, b = 0.005 ( SE = 0.002), t (133) = 1.90, and p = 0.060, and no interaction, t (7235) = 0.84 and p = 0.400.

After regrouping the HIF1 + and the HIF1 + /HIF2 + tumors, the association is marginally significant (P=0.06), whereas no significant association exists when regrouping HIF2 + and HIF1 + /HIF2 + (P=0.29).

Furthermore consistent with our expectations, there is a marginally significant relationship between green space attachment and mental health, β = 0.15, t (245) = 1.89, p = 0.06.

In contrast, during the 550–700 ms interval, a marginally significant effect of Structure emerged at the right anterior sites [ F (1, 23) = 3.82, p = 0.06], reflecting a trend toward greater negativity for the Island condition relative to the Nonisland condition. 3.6.2.2 Results of ERPs at the QP region Figure 5 presents the grand-average waveforms for the four experimental conditions defined by the interaction of Structure (Nonisland vs.

To assess HI effects independent of temperature modulation, a 4 (Area) × 2 (Sex) × 2 (Treatment; HI normothermic and sham) repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant Sex × Treatment interaction [ F (1,37) = 5.621, p < 0.05], as well as a marginally significant Sex effect [ F (1,37) = 3.748, p = 0.06] and Area × Sex interaction [ F (1,37) = 2.996, p = 0.09].

In the overall measure of instructional quality, there was only a marginally significant difference between GTAs from University A and GTAs from University B ( p = 0.06).