“marginally significant”

Mechanisms of motor control in handwriting readiness In the integrated structural model, while Pencil Grip showed a marginally significant positive association with Writing Performance (β = 0.137, p = 0.066), its direct impact appeared to be partially suppressed by the inclusion of the overarching VMI-Performance factor.

Gender-based analysis of normalized brain volumes revealed ( Table 2 ) a significant difference between male and female participants in total frontal volume ( p = 0.012) and a marginally significant difference in total parietal volume ( p = 0.066).

Healthy controls showed a greater alpha diversity based on observed OTUs (* p = 0.05) and marginally significant Chao1 indices ( p = 0.066) ( Figure 2 ).

(2012) (marginally significant p = 0.066), Gaston et al.

The multivariable meta-regression was marginally significant (χ2 = 29.01, p = 0.066), but substantial residual heterogeneity persisted (I 2 = 98.6%).

Percent motility was marginally significant at p = 0.066 ( Figure 1 C).

The Χ 2 test revealed marginally significant differences in visual problems ( Χ 2 = 10.3, df = 5, p = 0.066; without suspected cases: Χ 2 = 9.32, df = 5, p = 0.097) between the ASD and non-ASD groups.

For future metabolic risk score, BCAAs showed a marginally significant effect on metabolic syndrome risk (OR = 3.222, p = 0.066), while different results were from Hellmuth et al.'s study, which suggested tyrosine, rather than BCAAs, was the useful biomarker for future risk of IR and metabolic risk in 80 obese children with one-year follow-up.

There was additionally a marginally significant fixed effect of CPRS conflict, F (1, 39) = 3.585, p = 0.066, showing a positive association between arousal and CPRS conflict.

However, results for the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 showed a marginally significant difference (paired t test, p = 0.066).

However, results revealed a marginally significant interaction between implicit partner evaluations and type of behavior, b = 0.18, SE = 0.10, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.38], p = .066, β = 0.07.

The intervention also significantly increased parents’ self-efficacy for condom use, b(SE)=0.60(0.21), p=0.007, and showed marginally significant effects on parent and child HIV knowledge [b(SE)=0.60(0.32), p=.066, b(SE)=0.85(0.43), p=0.052, respectively].

The association with overall survival in non‐smoker patients remained marginally significant in multivariate Cox proportional‐hazards regression after adjustment for age, gender, and tumor stage (n = 130, HR = 0.560 [95% CI 0.30‐1.04]; P = .066) (Table S6 ).

The fixed effects omnibus tests indicated a marginally significant effect for role of session participant ( F = 3.38, p = 0.066) and a significant effect for Order of OD-session ( F = 4.07, p = 0.044), suggesting that these variables were associated with the SRS scores.

For the external early-stage (< T2) patients, although the survival difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.066), likely due to the limited sample size and low event rate, a consistent trend of risk separation was observed.

Finally, the HUD × Session two‐way interaction (comparing Sessions 1 and 4) described above was marginally significant when fog was present in the environment ( g = 0.031, SE = 0.012, t (169.5) = 2.57, p = .066), but not when there was clear visibility of the environment ( g = 0.001, SE = 0.012, t (161.88) = 0.10, p > .999).

We also found a marginally significant positive correlation at the right inferior frontal gyrus ( r = 0.471, p = 0.066).

1 ) and tended to decrease with increasing exposure level ( P = 0.064): females under high exposure had lower probability to lay than females under low exposure ( P = 0.010) but there was a marginally significant difference between females under high exposure and unexposed females due to higher variation in the unexposed group ( P = 0.066, Table 2 , Fig. 2a ).

Backward masking reduced target visibility [ F (1,14) = 92.73], and close proximity was marginally significant in reducing target visibility [ F (1,14) = 3.96, p = 0.066].

The effect of L1 proficiency was marginally significant (F = 3.70,df = 25.18, p = 0.066).

The left high-frequency average hearing threshold showed a marginally significant negative predictive effect on the total MoCA score ( β = −0.08, p = 0.066), whereas the effect of the right ear was not significant (β = −0.07, p = 0.101).

2 a–d, Table S1 ) and a marginally significant relation in another three populations (OK-BAC, TX-GRO, and TX-LIV, GLM Density: P = 0.066–0.074; see Table S1 ).

Statistical results We found no significant difference in mean parasite richness between sloth species (ANOVA: F 1,34 = 1.3, P = 0.263) or habitat types ( F 1,34 = 0.4, P = 0.544), but there was a marginally significant sloth species × habitat type interaction ( F 1,34 = 3.6, P = 0.066).

However, the rs3134940 genotypes and alleles frequency showed a marginally significant difference between the COPD-BBS group and BBES (p = 0.066 and 0.075, respectively).

Tumor CTLA-4 expression was a marginally significant prognostic factor for FFS ( p = 0.066).