“marginally significant”

Insulin levels showed a marginally significant reduction within the POST group (Δ = −1.92 μU/mL, p = 0.069) but not in the PRE group (p = 0.366).

For female respondents, the mediating effect of family support on sleep quality with respect to FOC was significant (B = 0.045, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.023, 0.077]); for male respondents as well, this mediating effect was marginally significant (B = 0.013, p = 0.069, 95% CI [0.002, 0.032]).

Post hoc Bonferroni‐corrected analyses showed a marginally significant improvement in regulation success following OXT in the high anxiety group (reappraisal success: PLC = 4.14 ± 0.94, OXT = 4.82 ± 0.91, p = 0.069, see Figure 2B ). 2.3 fMRI Results 2.3.1 Top‐Down Guidance of Threat‐Related Perception and Attention In order to investigate the top‐down and bottom‐up properties of the emotion regulation paradigm, we initially extracted the time courses from the clusters in the primary visual network, higher visual network, fusiform gyrus, and visuospatial attention network during stimulus presentation.

FSH increased (6.54 mlU/ml) compared to an increase (1.76 mlU/ml) in placebo group, which was marginally significant (p=0.069).

Participants with any positive attitude towards alcohol advertisements also had increased odds of having been drunk (aOR = 2.20, 95% CI [0.94, 5.12]), but this association was marginally significant (p = 0.069).

Change from 2020 to 2021 There was a marginally significant increase in average number of daily virtual interaction partners between 2020 and 2021 (Table S2 ), t (418.63) = 1.83, p = 0.069, and a significant increase in number of weekly virtual interaction partners from 2020 to 2021, t (397.51) = 2.32, p = 0.021.

Condition (i.e., whether a population originated from unaffected or oiled areas) had marginally significant effects on genetic distance ( F ST ) among populations (GLM, F = 4.06, df = 1, P = 0.069, Table S3 in Supporting Information ).

The interaction between load and group was marginally significant [ F (1, 38) = 3.514, p = 0.069], with a lower accuracy rate in the HA group than in the LA group on the 2‐back task ( p = 0.055) (Table 1 , Figure 2 ).

In addition, the association between establishment success and diet was marginally significant ( P = 0.069), suggesting that generalist species utilising several larval host plants expanded less than species specialising on one or a few host plants (Table 1b , Fig. 4a , Table S2 ).

At the DRD2 SNPs the association of the TaqIA polymorphism with substance abuse was marginally significant using the 3 genotype categories (χ 2 = 5.34, df = 2, p = 0.069) and nominally significant for the A1+ vs A1- categories (χ 2 = 4.52, df = 1, p = 0.034), with 57.9% of the substance abuse present group carrying the A1-allele vs 36.1% of the substance abuse absent group.

angry scenes ( M = 101.257, SE = 2.093) ( p < 0.005) and marginally significant for happy as compared to neutral ( M = 107.413, SE = 2.653) p = 0.069].

The C/N showed marginally significant correlations with arsenic resistance ( p = 0.069) and carbon cycling genes ( p = 0.073), and significant correlation with nitrogen fixation genes ( p = 0.024).

cocaine choice procedure found a marginally significant effect of determination time on cocaine’s potency (F(1,8) = 4.39, p = 0.069) (Supplementary Table S4 ).

Only the mean effect size for trials with 30 sessions (0.61, 95% CI: 0.10 – 1.13) became significant and the difference between subgroups of session number became marginally significant ( p = 0.069, Supplementary Table 1 ).

This challenge is likely affected by trials in which children’s visual access differed from that of their social partner (i.e., Does Not See trials) as is reflected in the marginally significant difference between Can See (M = 82.61, SD = 21.18) and Does Not See trials (M = 76.26, SD = 25.77) trials (paired-samples t-test: t (43) = 1.86, p =.069). 3.2.

Predictors in the final model for current overall functioning remained significant (baseline symptom severity) or marginally significant (age, baseline parent-reported impairment; 0.001 < p < 0.069, R 2 = 16.8 %).

Because of this difference in force error between the two tasks, the presence of an evaluative audience affected motor performance more robustly for the 10% MVC task: social condition × target force level interactions were significant for epochs 15, 14, 13, 10, and 9 ( F (1, 18) = 8.32, p = 0.010; F (1, 18) = 7.21, p = 0.015; F (1, 18) = 4.52, p = 0.048; F (1, 18) = 5.08, p = 0.037; F (1, 18) = 4.84, p = 0.041, respectively) and marginally significant for epochs 11 and 8 ( F (1, 18) = 3.73, p = 0.069; F (1, 18) = 3.67, p = 0.071, respectively).

We only find a marginally significant 3-way interaction coefficient ( p = 0.069) and therefore still insufficient support for H2 when current assets to current liabilities is used for slack.

We note that in additional analyses treating out-degree centrality as continuous, the interaction effect between out-degree centrality and neural responding remained significant in the negative affect ROIs ( p = .044; Table S5 ) and was marginally significant in the social pain ROIs ( p = .069; Table S4 ), but was not significant in the mentalizing ROIs ( p = .116; Table S6 ).

Finally, in the last time window (220–240 ms), the larger pseudoword than word response that was found to be fully significant in signal space, was confirmed as a marginally significant difference in the left temporal activation (F(1, 17) = 3.78, p = 0.069).

3 b), and we found a marginally significant positive effect on red deer BCS when individuals tested positive for antibodies of T. gondii (p = 0.069).

Noteworthy, this coefficient appeared as negative and marginally significant among boys, with a standardized beta value of β = −0.104, p = 0.069 (unstandardized b = −0.146, p = 0.078). 4.

The Differential Power of Humor Generation and Creative Generation in High Alpha Frequency Bands In the frontal area, we observed a marginally significant triple interaction effect involving answer type, time period, and hemisphere [ F (2,34) = 2.81, p = 0.069, η p 2 = 0.09].

In the right hemisphere ROI, there was a marginally significant main effect of group for relative delta power, F(2,55) = 2.796, p = 0.069.

In contrast, SSRI use (SSRI use, n = 10 vs no SSRI use, n = 7) was marginally significant (F (1,14) = 3.890, p = 0.069) such that participants with PTSD on SSRIs had 27% lower [ 18 F]FEPPA V T compared to participants not on SSRIs and showed no difference from HC (p = 0.837).