“marginally significant”

However, a difference in the prevalence of hyperadiponectinemia was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

Besides replicating the non-significant effect of movement order already observed in the former ANOVA, this analysis indicated a significant main effect of target distance (F (1,28) = 7.03, p = 0.01; Cohen’s d = 0.5) and a marginally significant distance by eccentricity interaction (F (1,28) = 3.4, p = 0.07; LSD post-hoc comparisons: FP < NP, FC and NC, all p < 0.05).

Significant interactions were found between physical illness and age and physical illness and meaning in life, and the triple interaction was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

NHB also had significant absolute weight loss [median (IQR): 1.8 kg (− 1.0–7.6), p = 0.04] at 6 months; percent weight loss was marginally significant [median (IQR): 1.5% (− 1.2–7.5) p = 0.07].

Last, N250 analyses g-i found a main effect of identity ( F (53,636) = 3.69, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.235) and a marginally significant interaction ( F (53,636) = 1.32, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.099), both hemispheres j,k showed a significant effect of identity ( F (53,636) = 2.67, p = 0.009, η p 2 = 0.182; F (53,636) = 3.214, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.21 for the left and right hemispheres, respectively), but the effect was larger on the right side.

However, the simple main effect of the GROUP CONDITION was marginally significant for the transposed-letter nonword condition [ F (1, 29) = 3.43, p = 0.07] but not for the correct word condition [ F (1, 29) = 0.77, p = 0.38].

Upon further consideration of confounders in Mode 3, 1–2 cups/day of total coffee or caffeinated coffee was still associated with a lower risk of constipation although it is marginally significant for total coffee (total coffee: OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35–1.06, p = 0.07); caffeinated coffee: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35–0.95, p = 0.03).

Moreover, staining of αGal residues on blots of dEAC intens extracts revealed two distinct bands at 55 kDa and of 140 kDa, which were reduced to 10.7% or to 57.7% of dEAC ord respectively (marginally significant, p<0.07 and p<0.09).

Follow-up tests showed that the difference between central and noncentral blocks was significant, t (23) = 2.73, p = .01 (one-tailed directional t test: p = .006), 4 Cohen’s d = .55; the differences between central-signal and no-signal blocks, and between no-signal and noncentral blocks were marginally significant; t (23) = 1.91, p = .07 (one-tailed directional t test: p = .035), Cohen’s d = .39, and t (23) = 1.81, p = .08 (one-tailed directional t test: p = .041), Cohen’s d = .37, respectively.

In step 3 models in the BA condition, only change in weight was a marginally significant predictor ( p = .07).

The G1 domain showed a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.07), while no statistically significant difference was found in the social relationships domain ( p = 0.45) ( Figure 16 ).

Only the target direction factor had an effect on the proportion of peaks after PVP [ F (4, 68) = 10.68, p < 0.00001] significantly different for +20° and +35° targets (−18% at +20° and −22% at +35° on average), while there was a marginally significant effect of the condition factor [ F (3, 51) = 2.47, p = 0.07].

In case of prevalence of MU among tertiles of DIL and DII, a marginally significant difference of MU in tertiles of DIL was found (T1: 40.8%, T2: 37.4 and T3: 49.2%, P = 0.07).

In the first step, we regressed personal distress on shared representation, and the model was marginally significant, F (1, 82) = 3.18, p = .07, as shared representation negatively predicted personal distress, β = −.19, p = .07.

saccharum (t 2344 = 1.84, marginally significant at p = 0.07; Fig 3A ).

Neutrophil concentration showed marginally significant interactions between treatment and time ( P = 0.07), with higher levels in the PM40 group.

There was a similarly marginally significant negative linear relationship (F = 3.72; df = 1, 20; r 2 = 0.16; p = 0.07) between sum counts of T. castaneum and dome trap distance from incoming unshelled peanut product.

The CBM-I training and control groups showed no significant between-group difference in any of the measures at baseline (all p > .05, Table 1 ). Training effects Negative interpretations In terms of negative interpretations of the scenarios, the main effect of time between T1 and T2 was significant ( F (1, 61) = 20.86, p < .001, η p 2 = .26), and the effect of group × time was marginally significant ( F (1, 61) = 3.43, p = .07, η p 2 = .05).

A statistically significant positive association was observed in Italy (B=0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.05; P <.001) and a marginally significant association in Germany (B=0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.04; P =.07), whereas the association was negligible in the remaining countries.

DN's fixation durations were shorter than the controls' with a marginally significant result (t = 1.6, p = 0.07).

Regarding the lockdown sample, the ART ANOVAs revealed significant time×group interaction effects on VO 2peak ( F 1,13 =11.44; P =.01; η 2 =0.47) and a marginally significant interaction effect on depression ( F 1,13 =3.90; P =.07; η 2 =0.23).

Comparison between groups and survival analysis Comparison of clinical characteristics of the two groups of patients showed similar median age, gender, site and onset of metastases and median tumor size but a marginally significant difference in the median size of metastases was found (< 3 cm: 45.9 vs 53.7%; > 3 cm: 54.1 vs 46.3%; p = 0.07) (Table 1 ).

Furthermore, in Bar and colleagues’ study [ 4 ], they observed that self-criticism predicts insomnia only in individuals with quite high (2SDs above the mean depression symptoms ( β = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.04, 95% CI [0.00, 0.12], and it is marginally significant for those with high (1SD above the mean depression symptoms ( β = 0.03, SE = 0.02, p = 0.07, 95% CI [− 0.00, 0.08], and not significant in those with mean ( β = 0.01, SE = 0.01, p = 0.40, 95% CI [− 0.02, 0.05] and below mean (1SD below the mean levels of depression symptoms ( β = − 0.00, SE = 0.02, p = 0.68, 95% CI [− 0.05, 0.03].

Importantly, there was also a marginally significant interaction effect between input order and insight ( F (1.29, 77.45) = 3.16, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.05), with participants exhibiting insight having significantly smaller RT differences for inputs 2–4 ( MD = 131.59, p = 0.013), replicating previous results (compare Figures 2A, C ), and marginally significant smaller RT differences for inputs 5–7 ( MD = 85.91, p = 0.09) than those without insight.

The association was marginally significant (P = 0.07).