“marginally significant”

This was qualified by a marginally significant interaction, F (3,292) = 2.39, p = .06, η p 2 = .03, Huynh-Feldt corrected ( Figure 4 ).

Association between pathobiological markers of breast cancer including tumor size and Ki-67 and the relationship of these variables with DAI and age As shown in Table 5 , we found a positive and marginally significant relationship between tumor size and the Ki-67 marker (correlation coefficient = 0.14, p = 0.06).

Line 406 p = .054 is defined as marginally significant; Line 419 p =.06 is defined as non-significant. 12.

However, there was a marginally significant difference in the number of boys and girls: 90% (9/10) of children in the ADHD group were boys, compared with 55% (11/20) in the control group ( P =.06).

But, a mean difference of headache frequency was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

In this sensitivity analysis we found that forced expiratory volume in 1 s % pred was a marginally significant predictor of death (p=0.06).

For late GU toxicity, the only predictor for grade 1–2 toxicity that was marginally significant was bladder D1% ( p = 0.06) and for grade 3–4 toxicity, bladder D15cc ( p = 0.09) in UVA.

(Only the correlation between rumination and workflow interruptions was marginally significant, p =0.06).

Additionally, we performed subgroup analysis according to specific TAs and found that the use of anti-VEGF agents significantly improved PFS (HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69–0.96, P =0.012) and a marginally significant PFS benefits for anti-EGFR agents (HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79–1.01, P =0.06).

The cultural Group × Video target interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 84) = 3.80, p = .06, η p 2 = .04.

Emergency room visits were marginally significant (emergency room visits 0.18 versus 0.07, P = 0.06).

We found a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.06) of stimulatory condition on the baroreflex sensitivity to falling blood pressure (BRS-DOWN).

Additionally, the frequencies of group 2 cells (CD137+ IFNγ+ CD8+ T cells) were higher in cluster 3 (G) tissues compared to cluster 2 (M) tissues (marginally significant, p = 0.06).

Conversely, when the multifrequency background pattern was presented at 20% contrast for the lowest spatial frequency target of 0.25 cyc/deg (complexity levels 4, 8, 12, and 16 in Table 2 ), contrast sensitivity was lower, being marginally significant [ t (21) = −1.99, p = 0.06], which is expected because at 20% contrast, the background activates parvocellular neurons more than magnocellular neurons (Kaplan and Shapley, 1986 ), making the task more difficult.

In the upper alpha band, there were no significant effects of Training or Task, apart from a marginally significant interaction between Task and Hemisphere [ F (1,19) = 4.07, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.18], which revealed a larger hemispheric ERD difference (in favor of the right hemisphere) in the figural-spatial compared to the multiplication problems.

Moreover, we found a marginally significant difference in cortisol levels between T1 and T3, t (152) = 2.84, p = 0.06, r = 0.22 with a larger effect for the humor group compared to the control one (2.0 and 0.38 respectively).

A marginally significant difference between groups was found in Anger Expression-In (F 2,148 = 2.94; p = 0.06; pƞ 2 = 0.04), with Extreme Dippers showing higher scores than both Dippers (F 1,148 = 4.52; p = 0.03; pƞ 2 = 0.03) and Non-Dippers (F 1,148 = 4.53; p = 0.04; pƞ 2 = 0.03); no differences were found between Dippers and Non-Dippers (F 1,148 < 1; p = 0.82).

Another cross-sectional study from the HABS has shown a marginally significant association between higher GDS score – driven by the anxiety-concentration subdomain – and lower glucose metabolism ( P = 0.06) [ 53 ].

A repeated measure analysis (ANOVA) with amount of coins (two levels: 10/0 versus 8/0) as a within-subjects factor and age group (five levels) as a between-subjects factor yielded the expected main effect of amount of coins [ F (1, 88) = 80.09, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant main effect of age [ F (4, 88) = 2.35, p = 0.06].

Calculation of Pearson correlations indicated that changes in the factor scores for conviction were not significantly correlated with baseline values of the JTC factor, r = .03 ( p = .65) and r = .04 ( p = .56), for the changes between 0 and 3 months and between 0 and 12 months, respectively, or the belief flexibility factor for the change between 0 and 12 months, r = −0.04 ( p = .52), though the correlation between baseline belief flexibility and change in conviction in the first three months was marginally significant, r = −0.13 ( p < .06).

The estimated recurrence time for larger size of pterygium before surgery was short and marginally significant (17.14 ± 0.58 month in size of ≤3.0 mm versus. 18.56 ± 0.60 month in size of <3 mm; P= 0.06).

Additionally, mothers with lower education levels consumed more alcohol than those with higher education levels, but this association was marginally significant (12.2% vs. 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.06). 3.2.

This study found that patients with hemorrhagic stroke had a higher incidence of falls with a marginally significant difference (p= 0.06) compared to patients with ischemic stroke.

The mean difference for mRND was 8.8%, which was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

Both tests showed, however, a marginally significant fit ( P = 0.06), most probably due to a low statistical power of the subsample and a resulting higher type II error.