“marginally significant”

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 ).

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.

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 ).

Mostly, there was no effect of mowing treatments on MBC or MBN, except a marginally significant effect of one of the mowing treatments (M10) on soil MBC (p = 0.085) and a significant effect of another (M15) on soil MBN (p = 0.005).

Partial Mantel tests controlling for the effect of time between sampling dates gave similar impacts of same vs different lake ( r = 0.372, P = 0.001) and same vs different host species ( r = 0.248, P = 0.001) on Prevosti distances. Our first AMOVA indicated marginally significant differences between P. ramosa genotypes in different lakes (variation explained = 11.9%, P = 0.085; Table 4 ), significant differences between genotypes infecting different host species within lakes (variation explained = 24.0%, P = 0.025; Table 4 ), and significant differences in P. ramosa genetic structure over time during outbreaks (variation explained = 15.2%, P = 0.002; Table 4 ).

3.3 Enjoyment 3.3.1 Flow short scale Flow experience was initially high (5.18 ± 1.04 out of 7) in questionnaire trial 1 (Q1) and it increased marginally significant over time ( p = 0 . 085 , n g 2 = 0 . 04 ).

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.

Genotyping was performed using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and high-resolution melting curve analyses. Results Although the genotype distributions of the CLOCK variants (rs1801260 and rs2412646) were not significantly different between patients with RLS and non-RLS controls, the allele frequencies of CLOCK rs1801260 showed marginally significant differences between the two groups (X 2 =2.98, p=0.085).

When emotional problems were included in the model 0, the Time 1 shyness to Time 2 loneliness path became marginally significant (β = 0.080; p = 0.085).

Three dimensional LVEF was higher in patients with rejection, however it showed only a marginally significant association [OR 1.035 (0.995; 1.077), p = 0.085].

An ANOVA found a marginally significant main effect of texture type, F (1, 11) = 3.59, p = 0.085, partial η 2 = 0.246, and no interaction between texture type and slant, F (7, 77) = 1.20, p = 0.313, partial η 2 = 0.098.

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).

The results indicated that in Chinese babble, the assimilators performed better than the convergers ( p = 0.047), and the divergers were better to a certain extent than the convergers (marginally significant, p = 0.085).

The only significant interaction term is Temperature × NTP ( t -test, p = 0.0003), while the Temperature × Benzyl–OH (Benzyl alcohol) interaction was marginally significant ( t -test, p = 0.085).

5 Supplemental individual-level analysis using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model ( Kenny et al., 2006 ) showed convergent results; the Actor × Partner interaction was marginally significant, b = -171.33, SE = 8.49, t (102) = -1.74, p = 0.085 95% CI[-366.68, 24.21].

Post hoc analyses revealed no significant simple effects, but a marginally significant RT difference in the high load condition ( P = 0.085).

This symptom was more common among case-patients who died (though marginally significant, p = 0.0851).

Full linear regression analyses, including slope and intercept comparisons between meadow types, revealed no significant relationship for species ( p = 0.575) and a marginally significant one for genera ( p = 0.0852).

The score for interest was a marginally significant trend (t(89)=2.07, p = .0853) only for students who selected radiology or cardiology (Figure 2 ).

Interestingly, we noticed that several marginally significant enriched pathways were consistent with previous findings 42 , including G-protein coupled receptor activity (Mann–Whitney U-Test, P = 8.54 × 10 −2 ).

Participants in the control group at the six-month follow-up presented with a marginally significant increase of perceived stresses (t=0.18, p=0.0859), trauma symptomatology (t = 1.7, p = 0.105) and depression (t = 1.9, p = 0.059).

There was a marginally significant advantage of DFS in ACSL4 high-expression group over the low-expression group (log-rank P =0.086), while ACSL4 expression could serve as an independent prognostic factor of DFS in the multivariate analysis (adjusted HR=0.283, 95% CI 0.083–0.966, P =0.044; likelihood ratio test; Fig. 8 a).

To examine this possibility, we compared the two test choices to chance performance; these results revealed that there was no significant difference from chance performance for the massed features test choice, t (40) = 1.278, p = 0.209, and a marginally significant difference from chance for the interleaved features test choice, t (40) = 1.760, p = 0.086.

At the maximal belief change, however, correlations between the neural response amplitude in the late time window (i.e., the CPP response) and behavior is significant in Experiment nSP ( R 2 = 0.2, p = 0.036) and is marginally significant in Experiment nTP ( R 2 = 0.12, p = 0.086).

Results We found a significant interaction between Similarity and Session [ Estimate = −13.35, SE = 4.93, 95% CI (−23.01, −3.69), t (51.65) = −2.71, p = 0.009], as well as a main effect of Similarity [ Estimate = 11.37, SE = 4.26, 95% CI (3.02, 19.72), t (43.98) = 2.67, p = 0.011] and a marginally significant main effect of Session [ Estimate = −4.44, SE = 2.54, 95% CI (−9.42, 0.54), t (58.32) = −1.75, p = 0.086] ( Figure 1 ).