“marginally significant”

To follow up, we first established that a model constraining the regression coefficients to be equal between groups does not worsen model fit relative to the model where all parameters are freely estimated, although this difference in model fit was marginally significant ( p = .072).

The main cognitive status effect on the slow-delta rhythmic power became marginally significant ( P = 0.072).

Our interaction analysis suggested that there were marginally significant interaction between days in cohort and gender on pituitary heights ( P = 0.072).

Testing-naïve older adults showed a tendency for higher recognition of near- than far-distance objects, particularly for context-atypical and unfamiliar objects, with this pattern marginally significant (p = .072) for the unfamiliar objects ( M near = .73, .85, and .79 for context-typical, context-atypical, and unfamiliar; M far = .71, .77, and .60, respectively).

A similar effect with greater relative left frontal activation in response to anger as compared to greater relative right frontal activation to pain was also observed at mid-frontal electrodes (F3, F4) where the difference between the frontal EEG alpha asymmetry scores in response to facial expressions of anger and pain was marginally significant, t (19) = 1.90, p = .072 (see Table 1 ).

Further subdivision of ribosomal protein genes revealed a significant positive correlation ( P < 0.01) for rpl genes and a marginally significant negative correlation ( P = 0.072) for rps genes (Fig. 1c ).

Economic status was marginally significant ( p =0.072).

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant interaction for both block and group ( F (10,330) = 1.733, p = 0.072).

The main effect of set size was significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 24.81, p < 0.001]; the main effect of complexity was significant [ F (1, 61) = 8.68, p = 0.005]; the main effect of interference was not significant [ F (1, 61) = 2.09, p = 0.153]; the interaction between set size and complexity was marginally significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 2.37, p = 0.072]; the interaction between set size and interference was not significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 0.60, p = 0.618]; the interaction between complexity and interference was not significant [ F (1, 61) = 0.93, p = 0.339]; the interaction between these 3 variance was not significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 0.73, p = 0.535].

No haplotypes showed a possible ET association ( Table II ) though the C-C haplotype of rs1801131-rs1801133 showed a marginally significant association with ET ( P = 0.072).

The association of FPC1 with AD was marginally significant in females ( P = 0.072), corresponding to lower values of E1, E2 and SHBG in cases.

In addition, education level has a marginally significant negative effect on health behaviors ( β = −0.05, p = 0.072), meaning that the health behaviors performance of the public with a higher education background is not as excellent as that of the public with a lower education background.

Food availability showed significant correlations with parental health (r = 0.23, p = 0.014) and macronutrient intake (r = 0.19, p < 0.001), as well as a marginally significant relationship with eating patterns (r = 0.30, p = 0.072).

Testing Whether a Higher Level of IU Leads to Lower Intentions to Get Vaccinated, to Have One’s Children Vaccinated, and to Recommend the Vaccine An omnibus repeated measures ANOVA did not show a significant effect of IU on the intention to get vaccinated, F (5, 238) = 1.42, p = 0.214, but it did show a marginally significant effect of attitudes towards vaccination on the decision to get vaccinated, F (5, 238) = 2.03, p = 0.072.

Results Participants in the variety condition reported marginally significant more weekly moderate-to-vigorous PA ( p = .072) over the course of the intervention and higher psychological needs satisfaction (p = .099) at four weeks relative to the comparison.

There was a marginally significant trend between the mortality rates and the median reduction rates of oesophageal manometry (r = 0.352, p = 0.072; Figure 1 B). 3.1.3.

10.7), although the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.072).

Between the 32 study subjects and the 14 drop-outs, the proportion of those aged 75 or older was higher among the drop-outs (93%) than among the subjects (63%), and this difference was marginally significant (p = 0.072).

This association was marginally significant at 1‐year follow‐up (0.43, 0.17–1.08, p = .072) and not significant at 2‐year follow‐up (0.75, 0.33–1.67, p = .475).

Effect of geographical distance on beta diversity after controlling for environmental variables The observed partial correlation coefficients of beta diversity with geographical distance (coordination) after controlling environmental heterogeneity were significant for total bryophytes ( r = .1493, p < .001), total mosses ( r = .1432, p < .001), liverworts ( r = .090, p < .02), pleurocarpous mosses ( r = .1257, p < .005), and marginally significant for acrocarpous mosses ( r = .0471, p = .072) (Table 3 ).

The response rate of CRT efficacy in EOG was 55.2% (16/29), which was obviously increased compared with 36.5% (35/96) in non-EOG, with a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.072, OR = 2.15, 95%CI: 0.93-5.00; Table 3 ).

Correlations Between HAMD Scores and Cortical Activation The results of Pearson's correlation analysis showed that HAMD scores were positively correlated with the VFT-related Δβ (β post− β pre ) in channel 37 at a marginally significant level ( r = 0.344, FDR-corrected p = 0.072) in all the included patients ( Figure 6 ), as well as in ROI 1 ( r = 0.255, p = 0.087), but not in single-channel 26, 27, or 28 (FDR-corrected p > 0.05).

The wild-type complex exhibited substantial inter-replica variability (SD = 3.42 Å), while one-way ANOVA revealed marginally significant differences among systems (F(2,9) = 3.28, p = 0.085), with the NP_006138.1 :p.(Arg84Cys)- NP_006138.1 :p.(Ala16Val) comparison approaching significance (p = 0.072).

β-diversity profiles in the TWK10 group after administration showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.072, by unweighted UniFrac distance) to those in the Control group after administration ( Figure 3 C), while those in the TWK10-hk group differed significantly from those in the Control group (PERMANOVA, P = 0.036, by NMDS with unweighted UniFrac metric; P = 0.072 by unweighted U

Differences between conditions with respect to education were also marginally significant F (3, 1994) = 2.33, p = .072.