“marginally significant”

In the geography-1 criterion, variation among groups was insignificant, whereas a marginally significant difference among groups (p = 0.085) was found using the geography-2 criterion.

The main effect of materialism on the number of acres participants chose to cut was marginally significant ( B = 5.11, SE = 2.95, t = 1.73, p = 0.085, 95%CI = [−0.71, 10.92]), and there was no main effect of decision context on the number of acres ( B = 6.33, SE = 4.04, t = 1.56, p > 0.05, 95%CI = [−1.64, 14.30]).

However, there was a marginally significant interaction between HW and time ( p ‐value = 0.085), indicating a time‐dependent effect of HWs on phytoplankton biomass (Table A4 ).

The linear model found all the factors to be significantly associated with eGFR90 change except for a history of diabetes and emergency surgery, which were marginally significant ( p = 0.085 and p = 0.063, respectively).

The effects of mecamylamine were generally greater in the Nic + Mec EVEN group compared to the Nic + Mec ALL group, a difference that was significant on test days 4 and 6 (q = 6.2 and 5.2, respectively, p < 0.01) and marginally significant on test day 2 and 8 (q = 3.4 and 3.3, respectively, p = 0.085 and 0.095).

Unexpectedly, however, children who practiced fraction number line estimation without feedback also improved, though the improvement was smaller and marginally significant (pretest PAE = 21%, SD = 19, posttest PAE = 18%, SD = 18), t (24) = -1.80, p = .085, d = -0.36.

The mean value of Lymphocyte ratio % in the welder group (30.29 ± 6.19%) was lower than the non-welder group (32.32 ± 6.64%), but marginally significant (p = 0.085).

The effect of Openness was found to be marginally significant ( β = 0.15, CI 95 − 0.02 to 0.33, p = 0.085, equivalent to an increase of $19 in willingness to pay; see Table S23 for zero-order correlations and Tables S24 – 25 for full regression outputs).

difficult, the main effect of time point was marginally significant, F (3) = 2.37, p = 0.085, although a planned contrast revealed that mothers reported less ease of virtual visits at 12 months ( M = 2.43, SD = 1.28) compared with maternal reports at the other three time points combined (3 months: M = 1.69, SD = 0.85; 6 months: M = 1.33, SD = 0.52; 9 months: M = 1.64, SD = 0.92), t (40) = 2.65, p = 0.011.

Additionally, there were two marginally significant interactions: one occurred between activation in the response inhibition system and the number of communities ( β = 0.299, p = 0.085; Figure 4 A), whereas the other occurred between activation in the response inhibition system and the network size ( β = 0.211, p = 0.084).

FA also showed a marginally significant positive effect (B = 0.477, SE = 0.277, p = 0.085) (odds ratio = 1.611, 95 % confidence interval = [0.936, 2.773]).

In Bins 2 and 3, the two-way interaction between group and viewing condition was significant, F (2, 56) = 3.29, 3.35, p = 0.005, 0.042, generalized eta 2 = 0.07, 0.06, respectively This interaction was marginally significant in Bin 1, F (2, 56) = 2.58, p = 0.085, generalized eta 2 = 0.04.

A t-test revealed that the difference in baseline Positivity between rounds was marginally significant ( t (169) = 1.52, p = 0.085).

Using this difference score as our dependent measure and group as fixed factor, we found a marginally significant main effect of group, F (2, 138) = 2.51, P = 0.085, ηp2 = 0.035 (this is analogous to an interaction effect using repeated measures ANOVA with a group factor and an age factor: the statistics are identical).

Interestingly, the NalRifR702 strain declined faster in the persistence phase than the wt strain ( t -tests, p = 0.032 assuming a power law, or marginally significant if one assumes an exponential decay in the phase, p = 0.085, Table 1 , Figure 3 ), even if these mutations (Nal, Rif, or NalRif) did not affect the decay rate in the persistence phase ( p > 0.05, Table 1 , Figure 2 ).

A marginally significant finding ( p = 0.085) indicated that male oncologists obtained higher scores with respect to instrumental coping and emotional-cognitive manifestations than did female oncologists.

Elevated CO 2 alone significantly ( P < 0.05) increased the signal intensities of mcrA for CH 4 production and pmoA for CH 4 oxidation, while the signal intensities of these two genes decreased under warming at marginally significant ( P = 0.085) or significant ( P = 0.033) levels, respectively ( Supplementary Figure S5 ).

In the negative valence condition, IC showed a marginally significant effect ( β = 0.23, SE = 0.13, z = 1.73, p = 0.085).

Overall, the odds of mental health distress increased by a marginally significant 22% (OR 1.22 [CI 0.99–1.49] p = 0.085).

For non-cognates, in the first repetition there was a significant interaction between experiment and priming (F1(1,115) = 11.495, MSE = 14143.137, p = .001; F2(1,172) = 14.361, MSE = 29736.914, p < .001), a significant main effect of language (F1(1,115) = 16.382, MSE = 37476.322, p<001; F2(1,172) = 9.966, MSE = 127153.134, p = .002), a marginally significant main effect of experiment by subjects only (F1(1,115) = 3.010, MSE = 37476.322, p = .085; F2<1) and marginally significant interactions between experiment and language also by subjects only (F1(1,115) = 3.761, MSE = 37476.322, p = .055; F2(1,172) = 1.404, MSE = 127153.134, p = .238).

Effects of Direct Irradiation and EV-Transfer from Irradiated Mice on Lipid Peroxidation in the Spleen Lipid peroxidation in the spleen of mice irradiated with 2 Gy was moderately (1.6-fold) increased as compared to the nonirradiated mice ( p = 0.033), and there was also a small, marginally significant (1.2-fold) increase ( p = 0.085) in lipid peroxidation in the spleen of mice irradiated with 0.1 Gy ( Figure 1 ).

When considering only the Dvov‐N populations, the ratio is marginally significant ( p = .085), suggesting a stronger effect of balancing selection at higher latitudes. 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 Historical process of species divergence This study suggests that the combination of geographic isolation and the effect of the latitudinal environmental gradient (temperature seasonality, in particular) in northwestern Mexico promoted the divergence between D. sonorense and D. vovidesii .

However, the interaction between group and elevation was marginally significant (Type II ANOVA, F1, 15 = 3.41, P = 0.085), suggesting that the relationship between elevation and haplotype number may differ between groups.

The phylogenetic signal is marginally significant for foliar [C] under warming (K = 0.121, P = 0.085), foliar [N] (K = 0.129, P = 0.067) and [P] (K = 0.132, P = 0.066) under N addition, foliar [N] under eCO 2 (K = 0.167, P = 0.080) (Table 1 ).

5 A) showed a marginally significant main effect between trials (F = 3.18, p = 0.085, partial η 2 = 0.102, medium effect), as did the HF index (F = 3.211, p = 0.084, partial η 2 = 0.103, medium effect) and the DFA α1 index (F = 4.163, p = 0.051, partial η 2 = 0.129, large effect).