“marginally significant”

The effect was significant for 14/92 neurons (2 negative and 12 positive) and marginally significant at the population level (second-order t test: t(91) = 1.68; p = 0.096; Fig 4L ).

To do this, we built on Model 1 (described earlier) and added Learning ETG disclosure and Instrumental ETG disclosure, resulting in a marginally significant change in R 2 ,Δ R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.096.

The E-Fit group showed a marginally significant interaction effect in the whole body areal BMD at the 6- ( p = 0.096) and 12-month follow-ups ( p = 0.085).

Results suggested that the main effect of gender on prejudice was marginally significant, F (1,66) = 2.85, p = 0.096, η p 2 = 0.041, with female participants ( M = 2.91, SD = 0.63) holding more prejudice than male participants ( M = 2.62, SD = 0.81).

For instance, three categories of prior healthcare employment were associated with a higher starting wage among BSN-educated RNs, but only one category had a marginally significant ( p -value = 0.096) association for Associate-educated RNs, thus supporting our hypothesis 1 particularly among BSN-educated RNs.

Population growth shows a marginally significant negative trend with HR increase and there is a higher population growth rate among municipalities with lower levels of HR (p = 0.096).

Marginally significant correlations were observed for SE with EL domains ( r = 0.15, p = 0.096) and PH with AL domains ( r = 0.17, p = 0.08).

Results The PERMANOVA including both species and FL factors identified significant differences in the elemental concentrations and their ratios and in the metabolomes of the needles of the three species (pseudo‐ F = 42.3; P < 0.0001), identified marginally significant differences between the FLs (pseudo‐ F = 1.9; P = 0.096) and identified significant differences in the species × FL interaction (pseudo‐ F = 2.7; P < 0.05) (Table 1 ).

Happiness A mixed ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction between valence and component, F (1,454) = 2.79, p = 0.096, η p 2 = 0.01, which was not qualified by a 3-way interaction, F (3,454) = 1.80, p = 0.147.

The ANOVA for thermal tolerance values (LD50) suggests a marginally significant effect of mean developmental temperature ( p = .096; Appendix S4 ), but significant differences between the two species ( p = <10 –5 ) and a significant mean developmental temperature × species interaction ( p = .008).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between sex and site (PERMANOVA: R 2 = 3%, p = 0.096), driven by greater proportions of Scorpaeniformes, Perciformes, and Pleuronectiformes in female scats at Comox; however, there was no significant interaction between sex and year (Table 3 ).

After one year, the improvement in the oral health-related attitude of parents and children’s oral health behavior was marginally significant in the intervention group compared to the control group [0.2 (0.17) vs. -0.13 (0.05), p = 0.096] and [0.06 (0.06) vs. -0.05 (0.04), p = 0.09], respectively.

at least one low) (HR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.02–1.71, Wald’s p = 0.034, log-rank p = 0.034), while when combined with TOP2A the prognostic value for the co-expression was marginally significant (HR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.95–1.80, Wald’s p = 0.096, log-rank p = 0.095) ( S3 Table ).

The 300–500 ms Time Window A (Bayes) repeated measure ANOVA revealed significant main effects of region [ F (2,46) = 12.1, p < 0.001, BF 10 = 5.2 × 10 12 ], hemisphere [ F (2,46) = 4.6, p = 0.016, BF 10 = 1.0 × 10 1 ], and a marginally significant interaction between SYNTACTIC consistency and SEMANTIC consistency [ F (1,23) = 3.0, p = 0.096, BF incl = 13.5].

When deer with AC and CC were compared, there was a marginally significant association to CWD susceptibility and CC deer showed a reduced CWD susceptibility compared to AC deer ( OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.103–1.135, p = 0.096, Fisher’s exact test, two-tailed) ( Figure 4(b )).

The association between the donation history and intention to donate again was marginally significant ( p = 0.096).

The remaining direct effects of motion on appeal ( B = 0.09, SE = 0.09, t (153) = 1.03, p = 0.306, d = 0.163) and taste perception ( B = 0.03, SE = 0.11, t (153) = 0.25, p = 0.802, d = 0.04) were not significant, but there was a marginally significant remaining direct effect of motion on healthiness perception ( B = −0.13, SE = 0.08, t (153) = −1.68, p = 0.096, d = −0.266).

Repeated analysis in male patients showed a similar but marginally significant difference ( t (28) = – 1.757, p = 0.096).

Variance partitioning confirmed the overwhelming effect of elevation, explaining solely 14.8% variation ( F = 2.5, P = 0.048), but also significant was the net effect of the cushion (4.2%, F = 1.9, P = 0.042), and marginally significant the elevation × cushion interaction (9%, F = 1.3, P = 0.096).

An increasing proportion of females was observed in the Central Sound (R 2 = 0.512, F (df = 1; 20) = 21.01, p = 0.00018; in years prior to 2019, R 2 = 0.670, F (df = 1; 18) = 36.6, p < 0.0001) and a weak, marginally significant relationship was observed with time in Outer Norwalk Harbor (Fig. 4 ; R 2 = 0.154, F (df = 1; 17) = 3.102, p = 0.09616).

Anxiety, though, demonstrated a marginally significant positive relationship with this subscale (β = 0.19, SE = 0.11, t (267) = 1.669, p = .0964).

Still, at sucrose concentrations between 0 and 50 mM, the ability to choose the higher concentration was somewhat weaker (65%–67%) when compared to the ability to choose to feed on 75 versus 25 mM (74%) (marginally significant, p ≤ 0.0966, one-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparisons to the 0 versus 10, 25, and 50 and 10 versus 50 mM sucrose choice assays) or 300 versus 50 mM (88%) (p ≤ 0.0074, one-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparisons to the 0 versus 10, 25, and 50, 10 versus 50, and 25 versus 75 mM sucrose choic

Relationship between spectral coherence and diffusion-tensor-MRI measures Canonical correlation between the discriminant-analysis- identified Coherence Factors-7,-12, and-15 and the diffusion-tensor-MRI measures, (corpus callosum radial diffusivity, cingulum fractional anisotropy, and internal capsule radial diffusivity) was marginally significant (χ 2 =14.79, df =9, P =0.0968).

2.9%, P = 0.038), a marginally significant decrease among UTI patients (12.5% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.097), and no statistically significant change in the ABSSSI (5.6% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.694) and cIAI (20.8% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.233, CI) subgroups.

After adjusting for multiple comparisons, there was a marginally significant difference between category 1 and 2 (0% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.097).