“marginally significant”

Table 2 demonstrates that probiotic supplementation partially enhanced the ATTD of select nutrients, with either extract showing a marginally significant improvement ( p = 0.08). 2.2.

Errors are higher in the HTN group (0.39) than in the non-HTN group (0.13), with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.080) and a medium effect size (0.258).

However, results for experimental studies using these effect sizes suggested only a marginally significant 15% ( p = 0.08) increase in the odds of a police‐reported repeat incident, compared to a statistically significant 22% increase in the original analysis.

At baseline, MVPA exhibited a positive correlation with CRF (β = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23~0.58, p < 0.001) and FGDS (β = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06~0.25, p = 0.002), and a marginally significant association with GDR score (β = 0.11, 95% CI: −0.01~0.23, p = 0.080) in the unadjusted model (Model 1).

The analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of the condition contrast, β = .19, p = .080, qualified by a significant interaction with PNS, β = –.28, p = .036.

A marginally significant increase was instead noted in the use of volitional terms [ F (2,27) = 2,788; p = 0.080].

Specifically, plant functional diversity negatively affected soil C and N, whereas plant richness had a significant positive effects on soil N and a marginally significant positive effect on soil C ( p = 0.08).

Adding the three feeding style predictors in the final block led to a significant increase in prediction ( p < .05) that appeared to be largely due to the indulgent feeding style (although this predictor was marginally significant, p = .08).

Among the three groups of boys, tests of overall mean differences were significant for English achievement, χ 2 (2) = 14.29, p < 0.001, and marginally significant for mathematics achievement χ 2 (2) = 5.13, p = 0.08.

The effect of cTBS in the preliminary experiment For the preliminary experiment of inpatients, a marginally significant time × group interaction was observed in the YBOCS score ( F = 3.25, p = 0.08; η 2 = 0.07; Fig. 2A ).

The direct actor effect of Partner A’s general stress communication on his/her own interaction quality was marginally significant, b = 0.84, SE = 0.48, p = 0.08, and further, the partner-partner indirect effect was statistically significant, b = -0.93, SE = 0.31, p = 0.002.

This trend was marginally significant (ANOVA p = 0.08) in the 0–2 cm depth interval (Figure 1 ; n = 6 N-fertilized vs. n = 6 unfertilized samples, However, gene copy number normalized per gdw was not significantly different among treatments in the 0–2 cm depth interval (data not shown).

The interaction between environment and exercise was marginally significant, F (1, 27) = 3.34, p = 0.08, and η p 2 = 0.11, suggesting that negative affect decreased more after exercise in the indoor condition than in the outdoor condition, see Table 1 .

7 B ) demonstrated a marginally significant effect of Voice ( B̂ = 0.89 ± 0.51, z = 1.75, p = 0.08), no effect of Time ( B̂ = −0.19 ± 0.27, z = 0.73, p = 0.98), and no interaction Time × Voice ( B̂ = −0.09 ± 0.33, z = −0.27, p = 0.55).

Results There was statistically significant improvement in intervention physicians' ability to "explain things in a way that was easy to understand" (p = 0.02) and marginally significant improvement in the overall quality of physician-patient interactions (p = 0.08) compared to control group physicians.

The impact of one SD increase in TG level on the hazard of CHD death among women was marginally significant (P=0.08).

A marginally significant Target Type × Cycle [ F (5, 50) = 2.63, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.20] and a significant Cue Type × Target Type × Cycle [ F (10, 100) = 3.55, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.26] interactions were also obtained.

However, the 2 subgroups, problematic and routine use, exhibited marginally significant heterogeneity in their associations with subjective well-being ( P =.08; I 2 =68.3%).

In linear mixed-effect analysis, it was marginally significant (z = 1.75, p = .08).

The interaction effect was marginally significant [ F (1, 24) = 3.39, p = 0.08, partial η2 = 0.12].

A marginally significant interaction between tDCS stimulation and group showed that patients tended to respond more strongly to stimulation than controls [ F (2,36) = 2.71, p = 0.08] ( Figure 3A ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between Target Category and Saccade Accuracy (F 1,23 = 3.33, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.126), suggesting that the difference in latencies according to the target stimulus was more pronounced for correct (25 ms difference with 187 ± 17 ms for Face target and 212 ± 26 ms for Vehicle target) than error saccades (14 ms difference with 175 ± 30 ms for Face target and 189 ± 21 ms for Vehicle target).

As shown in Table 7 , only two genes, CDH17 and RNF151 , exhibited marginally significant differences in haplotype frequencies ( p = 0.08, Pearson’s chi-square test), suggesting a potential association with the QTL.

N100 There was a marginally significant main effect of group (F 1, 74 = 3.22, p < 0.08, ƞ p 2 = 0.04), a significant main effect of figure type (F 1, 74 = 34.74, p < 0.001, ƞ p 2 = 0.32), and a significant main effect of hemisphere (F 1, 74 = 4.72, p < 0.05, ƞ p 2 = 0.06).

Model 3 (SR → GS rate → SCR) showed a marginally significant mediation effect ( p = .08) ( Table 1 ).