“marginally significant”

In 2017, it similarly led to a marginally significant increase in cellulose paper mass loss (β = 23.194, P = .062 by LMM; Fig. 3A ).

Moss proliferation, often associated with dense canopy and high humidity, was marginally significant ( P = 0.062) and may indicate suboptimal canopy management.

Mortality was lower among patients receiving intervention (38.61%) compared to those not receiving intervention (57.14%), with a marginally significant difference (χ 2 = 5.55, p = 0.062).

Warming had a marginally significant effect on A n ( P = 0.062; Table 2 ), decreasing rates by 4.9, 8.9 and 22 % in the low, medium and high warming plots, respectively, compared with ambient ( Fig. 2 ; Table 2 ).

Importantly, we also found a marginally significant testing × training regime interaction effect ( F 3,40 = 2.65, P = 0.062).

The difference between the mild and moderate pain groups was marginally significant (OR = 1.737, 95% CI: 0.972–3.104, P = 0.062).

The Intrinsic × Extrinsic interaction was marginally significant ( F 1,16 = 4.02, P = 0.062).

The increase in response to speech was marginally significant compared to rhesus ( t (23) = 1.96, p =.062) and human non-communicative non-speech vocalizations ( t (23) = 1.82, p =.081).

The effect for Black was marginally significant, β = 0.140, p = 0.062.

However, the difference between MF/F 400/10 μg and F 10 μg (49 mL) was marginally significant for the pre-specified LOCF analysis ( P = 0.062).

The path from Factor 3 to Factor 1 was marginally significant at the 0.1 level ( β = 0.126, standardized β = 0.160, p = 0.062).

In boys, the interaction was marginally significant in predicting parent-reported physical aggression ( t 210 = 1.842, p = .062).

Insulin iAUC was 9.9% lower following the EBJ meal challenge, but this effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.062). 3.3.

Furthermore, the difference in disease-free survival (DFS) using the cutoff of subtraction expression levels (BUB1B-PINK1) < 6.95 showed a marginally significant difference in developing metastasis (log-rank p = 0.062).

The correlation between platelets CoQ 10-TOTAL and noncoupled Complex I-linked oxygen consumption after addition of substrate glutamate (4G) was marginally significant in both control group (p = 0.062) and RA_ALL patients (p = 0.060), ( Fig 4D ).

The difference between “everything” and “something” was marginally significant ( Z = −1.87; P = 0.062), and the difference between “everything” and “nothing” was significant ( Z = −2.94; P = 0.003). 3.2.

Her impaired left leg had a significant increase in hip joint ROM (5.8 ± 2.4 deg, p = 0.019) during backward walking and a marginally significant increase in knee joint ROM (9.0 ± 6.7 deg, p = 0.062) during the left side stepping.

Furthermore, a marginally significant relationship was observed between Gln levels and pgACC-aMCC connectivity ( r = 0.48, p = 0.062, Fig. 5 B).

More respondents with high scores of perceived danger of COVID-19 (≥8) had favorable changes in having avoided smoking on the street (p=0.031) and reduced going out to buy cigarettes (p=0.014), and marginally significant differences in having avoided smoking with other smokers (p=0.062).

Additionally, semantic processing had a marginally significant contribution [ b = 0.031, t (46) = 1.92, p = 0.062].

The relative importance of predation risk was greater in Copper than No Copper treatments (0.87 ± 0.19 and 0.50 ± 0.06, respectively; mean ± SEM)–though this comparison was marginally significant at α = 0.05 (two sample t-test, t 4.80 = -1.86, p = 0.062).

The ratio of preserved axons was 0.88 ± 0.16 and 0.68 ± 0.17 in the 2-week 1.0 mg/kg etanercept-treated group and PBS-treated group, respectively, with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.062) (Table 1 ).

GRDP differences were marginally significant ( p = 0.062) ( Figure 2f ), while higher population density correlated with greater mortality risk ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 2g ).

A marginally significant improvement was found between days 5 and 3 ( p = 0.062).

For the forgetting rate of 1 day, ANOVA with feedback type and initial correctness as factors showed a significant effect of feedback type, F (2.42, 53.14) = 3.09, p = .045, η p 2 = .12, and a marginally significant interaction, F (2.30, 50.65) = 2.81, p = .062, η p 2 = .11.