“marginally significant”

SalpIL2 -only animals had a marginally significant increase of 260% in NK cell populations compared with controls ( P < 0.10).

We found a marginally significant ( p < .10) negative association between the muffinhead advertisement and the long-term expectation scale, indicating a higher receptivity to Muffinhead was associated with lower long-term expectations.

Furthermore, all three predictors were marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in predicting the mixing cost, so that younger age, earlier L2 acquisition, and a more balanced use of both languages in everyday life was associated with a smaller mixing cost.

Furthermore, the Session by Age group by Switching demand interaction F (1,168) = 4.49, MSE = 0.02, η 2 = 0.03, p = 0.04, as well as the Session by Age group by Maintenance demand interaction F (1,168) = 3.63, MSE = 0.02, η 2 = 0.02, p = 0.06 were at least marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

Additionally, changes in total cholesterol and CRP following the intervention were marginally significant ( P < 0.10).

Individual species of non-polar lipids that displayed statistically significant (p<0.05) and marginally significant (p<0.10) changes in quantities were shown in Figure 3B–C .

After adjusting for comorbidities and ADL limitations in the next model, the coefficient for the age difference became negative and was marginally significant (−.07, P < .10).

This effect was however marginally significant among boys ( p <0.1).

In addition, 31% of corals from Butaritari (N = 13) had partial mortality scars associated with the 2004 bleaching event, while none from Abaiang and North Tarawa showed such scars (N = 12); this difference was marginally significant (p = 0.10, permutation test).

If any interactions involving species were marginally significant (P<0.1) in the final model, we investigated simple effects by re-running the model (with the same covariates) separately for each species.

Among individual observations, marginally significant group by load interactions ( p <0.1, FDR corrected) were found for C net and E local,net at most of the observations.

The same analysis for BA 46 revealed a marginally significant effect [ t (15) = 1.38, p < 0.10].

Specifically, for the 117 terms consistently hypermethylated across different cancer types, we found that 115 terms were consistently enriched with hypermethylated genes for all four subtypes (hypergeometric test, P <0.05) and the other two terms were also marginally significant for all four subtypes (hypergeometric test, P <0.1).

This effect was significant for extremely negative images (5.62), t (20) = 2.88, p < .01, and marginally significant for moderately negative images (3.02), t (20) = 1.75, p < .10.

On the other hand, under repeatedly presentation, the main effect of object was significant, F (1, 30) = 27.78, p <.001, ŋ p 2 = .48, and the main effect of block was marginally significant, F (1, 30) = 3.88, p <.10, ŋ p 2 = .11, but there was no significant interaction of scene × block × object, F (1, 30)<1, n.s. , ŋ p 2 = .03.

We also detected one, 4, 3, and 9 marginally significant SDR (0.05 < P < 0.10) in Castorimorpha, Ctenohystrica, the squirrel-related clade and in Myomorpha respectively.

For all statistical tests, we considered differences to be significant at P ≤0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05< P ≤0.10.

Concerning the differences in transitions between land uses in the four mosaics types, only two transition types showed significant differences ( P <0.05), whereas two more were marginally significant ( P <0.10).

CO only showed marginally significant associations with PAI-1 at 3-d to 6-d moving averages ( p <0.10).

Thus, it would be more reasonable to evaluate the reliability of DE genes identified in only one dataset for a cancer type using the change directions of those genes showing at least marginally significant changes (e.g., p<0.1) in another dataset.

Overall, however, evidence for most of the evolutionary mechanisms tested in the current study was generally weak; of the 14 statistical tests 2 yielded significant results (expected by chance = 0.7), and 4 total yielded significant or marginally significant (i.e., p<.10) results (expected by chance = 1.4, Table 3 ).

laciniatus with interspecific neighbors in total fitness ( t 157 = 4.14, P = 0.0008), with a marginally significant difference in survival ( t 174 = 2.61, P = 0.10).

Quadratic relationships between zygomatic major activity and experienced/recognized valence were not significant, except for a marginally significant correlation between squared zygomatic major activity and experienced valence under the dynamic condition in Study 1 ( p <0.1).

A marginally significant group effect on the position weighting factor was found with higher weighting of position in CRPS-patients with fixed dystonia than in controls (p<0.10).

LMA showed only a marginally significant difference between plant functional types ( P < 0.1) as a result of variation in species selected, but there was a general decrease with increasing temperature ( Fig. 2A ).