“marginally significant”

There was also a marginally significant negative correlation between leaf consumption and total phenolic concentration per seedling (Spearman’s correlation test, S = 44207, ρ = −0.228, P = 0.079; data not shown).

There was also a marginally significant decline ( p = 0.079) in MAR within the cancer-injected limb at 36 days compared with 18 days post-injection (0.91μm/d ± 0.12).

Second, we expected this difference to be larger in male than female observers and therefore we compared the difference between threatening minus neutral male body expressions between male and female observers which yielded a marginally significant difference ( t (24) = 1.454, p = 0.079, one-tailed).

The moderated mediation model results for Time 1 showed that the interaction between N170 amplitude and age on reading was marginally significant (β = –0.01, p = .079, 95 % CI [–0.03, 0.01]), with significant direct effects at ages 10.6 (b = 0.291, p = .005, 95 % CI [0.090, 0.492]) and 12.1 (b = 0.310, p = .040, 95 % CI [0.090, 0.492]) but not at 8.6 years ( p = .112).

Separate t tests on the four SRBAI items showed a marginally significant higher score of the 3-day group on the following item: “I pressed without thinking,” t (49) = 1.79, p = .079, and a significantly higher score on the following item: “I pressed without having to consciously remember to,” t (49) = 2.99, p = .004.

We also found a positive relation between paternal age and Absorption that was marginally significant for one set of twins (p = 0.079) and conventionally significant (p = 0.038) for the other set of twins in the third model, but not without the enrichment sample.

The between-subjects effect of age was marginally significant, F (1,131) = 3.141, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.023, such that older children walked with lower normalized velocity than younger children.

(5) This change in BR resulted in a marginally significant decline in bacterial growth efficiency (BGE) along the DOC gradient (r 2 = 0.30, F 1,10 = 3.94, P = 0.079, Fig. 8c ): (6) Discussion In this study, we evaluated a commercially available source of humic substances (Super Hume) for studying the effects of terrestrial DOC on the chemistry, physics, and biology of aquatic ecosystems.

The difference in survival between the two groups was marginally significant ( Figure 1 Right, log-rank test, p = .079).

Differences Between Vignettes According to the results of the four-way ANOVA reported above, the three-way interaction between vignette, dimension of mind, and target of attribution was marginally significant [ F (2,224) = 2.56, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022].

Nevertheless, in a model with all response styles entered into the model simultaneously, a marginally significant relationship between rumination at time T−1 and negative affect at the subsequent time point was found (p = .079).

Under the long streak condition, the difference between SG and CG was only significant when subjects won (F(1,17) = 13.12, p = .002), but not when they lost (p (1,17) = 2.24, p = .15); the outcome by agency interaction was marginally significant (F(1,17) = 3.50, p = .079).

Among the HBM predictors of revisit behaviour, perceived benefit showed the strongest positive effect ( β = 0.264; P = 0.019), followed by perceived susceptibility ( β = 0.154; P = 0.079, marginally significant).

S3 A ] and marginally significant in the mPFC [t (24) = 1.83, P = 0.079, 95% CI(−0.83,13.95), Cohen’s d = 0.37; SI Appendix , Fig.

Concrete) as between-subject factors found a significant effect of sample: F (1,521) = 190.46, p < 0.001, no significant effect of condition: F (1,521) = 0.45, p = 0.501, and a marginally significant interaction effect: F (1,521) = 3.10, p = 0.079.

The results show that the main effect of the movement was significant ( F (2.597,33.763) = 3.251, p = 0.04, η2 = 0.2), and the main effect of the feedback mechanism was marginally significant ( F (2,26) = 2.806, p = 0.079, η2 = 0.178).

Although this difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.079), it indicates that the regularly active pattern may confer superior protection compared to the weekend warrior pattern, potentially due to the sustained physiological benefits of consistent physical activity.

In the HRS, diabetic participants with T3 of eGDR had marginally significant lower FI (β: -2.079, 95%CI -4.396 to 0.238, P = 0.079) as compared to T1 of eGDR.

Likewise, vegetation cover showed a marginally significant relationship with total substrate erosion ( p = 0.079, r 2 = 0.134), with total substrate erosion decreasing as vegetation cover increased (Fig. 6 b).

Similarly, off-medication symptoms (AUC=0.62, P =0.048) significantly predicted treatment response, whereas dose adjustment was a marginally significant predictor (AUC=0.61, P =0.079).

For embryonal tumours, there was a marginally significant higher hazard of all-cause death among pediatric patients in British Columbia (HR = 1.59; 95% CI: 0.95–2.66; p = 0.079) and the Prairie Provinces (HR = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.91–2.36; p = 0.11), when compared to Ontario.

As shown in Figures 5A , a paired t -test showed a marginally significant effect of posture condition on mean [HbO] for SWM ( t = 1.87, df = 16, p = 0.079; standing-SWM, 2.81 × 10 −4 ± 1.55 × 10 −4 mmol/L; sitting-SWM, 3.57 × 10 −4 ± 1.22 × 10 −4 mmol/L), but not NWM ( t = −0.081, df = 16, p = 0.94; standing-NWM, 2.03 × 10 −4 ± 1.07 × 10 −4 mmol/L; sitting-NWM, 1.94 × 10 −4 ± 6.68 × 10 −5 mmol/L).

There was a marginally significant difference in WM between adolescents and adults ( p = .079).

Subjects treated with MF/F 400/10 had the lowest rate of mild, moderate, or severe COPD exacerbations across treatments (25.8%), the relative reduction over placebo (20.6%) being nominally marginally significant ( P = 0.079).

The analysis showed no main effect of “referent position” (χ2(1) = 0.41, p = .521, d = 0.14), and only a marginally significant main effect of “dot position” (χ2(1) = 3.09, p = .079, d =-0.04), reflecting faster lexical decisions when maintaining the “bottom” shape in memory than when maintain a “top” shape.