“marginally significant”

Differences in total tracheobronchial LN scores between groups were marginally significant ( p = 0.0639) (Figure 5 B), showing a tendency for lesion reduction in the immunized group.

In addition, contact with real robots had a marginally significant influence (β = -0.09, p = 0.064), indicating a reducing effect on people’s negative expectancies (partly supporting hypothesis 2a; hypothesis 3b is not supported).

In the Parietal ANCOVA, there were marginally significant 2- and 3-way interactions: Group x LR (p = 0.064) and Group x Condition x LR (p = 0.096).

Only a marginally significant correlation was found between PDGFRA mRNA and lymph node metastasis ( p = 0.064). 2.2.

Further adjusted for fasting glucose, HOMA-IR, triglycerides, LDL-C, HDL-C, and white blood cell counts, there was a reduction in the association of NAFLD risk with per one SD of FM/FFM ratio; however, it was still significant in non-obese women (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10–1.50, p = 0.002) and obese women (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04–1.42, p = 0.013), and marginally significant in non-obese and obese men (both p = 0.064) (Table 2 ).

For the total fixation duration (TFD), a marginally significant interaction was found between emotion and group ( F (3, 522) = 2.479, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.014).

Then, a multivariate ANOVA was conducted and revealed a marginally significant main effect for the groups [ F ( 6 , 42 ) = 2.182, p = 0.064; η 2 = 0.238; Pillai’s trace: 0.475].

However, the redivision from 3 to 2 groups (H-IGF1 deco versus combined I-IGF1 deco and L-IGF1 deco ) demonstrated a marginally significant difference in the cumulative survival rates between the two groups ( p = 0.064; Supplementary Figure S5 ). 3.5.

A marginally significant main effect was found for experts, F (1,36) = 3.89, p = .064, η p 2 = 0.178, indicating that the expert had a longer average fixation time for the AOI than the novice.

A marginally significant TYPE*GRAM*GROUP interaction (F1(1,48) = 3.6, p = 0.064; F2(1,508) = 3.8, p = 0.052) revealed that participants reacted faster to sentences containing patient subject violations than to the corresponding grammatical sentences (natives: F(1,46) = 16.76, p < 0.001; non-natives: F(1,46) = 5.49, p = 0.023).

For the α-diversity of the top five eukaryota phyla, two showed significantly ( P < 0.05) increasing diversity with increasing elevation (SAR_norank and Fungi_unclassified) and one ( Mucoromycota ) showed a marginally significant increase ( P = 0.064) ( Supplementary Figure 4 ).

The dN/dS ratio had a marginally significant correlation with upper elevation limit (r = 0.550, p = 0.064; Additional file Figure S1 ).

Comparing the two pulse-timings showed a marginally significant main effect of pulse timing ( F (1,7) = 4.820; p = 0.064) indicating that applying TMS pulses early, directly at the offset of the stimulus display, resulted in larger recall errors (24.23° on average) than TMS applied midway through the retention interval (23.4° on average) Audible ‘clicks’ from a TMS machine can have differential attentional cuing effects when presented at different time points [ 44 ], and thus have the potential to influence behavior differently early versus late during a memory delay.

Association between HER-2 Immunoreactivity and Clinicopathological Parameters The overexpression of HER-2 was associated with poorly differentiated tumors, but this correlation was marginally significant ( P = 0.064).

Language network average clustering coefficient was also a significant predictor of Phonology [ Estimate = −8.100, 95% CI = (−15.662, −0.538), P = 0.036] and Semantics [ Estimate = 9.036, 95% CI = (1.249, 16.823), P = 0.023], and a marginally significant predictor of Lexical syntax [ Estimate = 8.777, 95% CI = (−0.501, 18.055), P = 0.064].

This difference became marginally significant ( P = 0.064) after setting the f AFLP -values with low confidence to “0” (i.e. in 13 out of 20 cases the estimates did not significantly differ from 0).

We also observed a marginally significant decrease of 5.3% ( p <0.064) for in-person primary care visits among the overall treatment population.

A one-way ANOVA model was marginally significant ( F = 2.48, df = 5, 131, P = 0.064).

Language × hemisphere interactions were not significant for the scientific metaphoric pairs ( p = 0.14), but marginally significant for the literal pairs [ F (2, 32) = 3.33, p = 0.064, η 2 p = 0.17].

Association with Acknowledgement Frequency/Usage Chi-squared tests revealed a marginally significant association of alarm acknowledgements (i.e., implicit usage of GBA) with the GBA method, X 2 (2, N = 432) = 5.494, p = 0.064 ( Table 7 ), and a significant association with scenario types, X 2 (2, N = 432) = 30.147, p < 0.001 ( Table 8 ).

Growth inhibition was significant at week 3 (P = 0.021, Mann‒Whitney) and marginally significant at week 4 (P = 0.064) (Fig. 1 b).

Repeated measures ANOVA indicated a marginally significant time-by-plasma manipulation interaction, F (3, 108) = 2.93, ε = .617, P = .064, as observed in Figure 6 .

These effects were accompanied with a valence × social content [ F (1, 18) = 7.30, p = 0.015] and a marginally significant side × valence × social content [ F (1, 18) = 3.89, p = 0.064] interaction.

Interaction between the group and the learning mode was marginally significant [ F (2,92) = 2.831, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.058].

The difference between the cross-lagged path coefficients was marginally significant, Δχ 2 (1) = 3.42, p = 0.064, with a stronger association leading from WM-t1 to ToM-t2 than in the opposite direction.