“marginally statistically significant”

The Network Comparison Test revealed a marginally statistically significant difference in global network structure ( M = 0.085, p = .054), but not strength ( S = 0.073, p = .067) across men and women.

A similar, marginally statistically significant, trend was found for Christians to be more likely to be highly religious than those who described themselves as Jewish (adjOR = 5.17, 95% CI: 0.99, 26.90; p = 0.054) (see Table 3 ). 3.3.

Between-group comparison showed that PCSK7 levels were higher in the PCOS group compared to the control group, and this difference was marginally statistically significant (p = 0.054) ( Table 1 ).

In rat model testing, diabetic rats had marginally statistically significant elevated levels of global DNA hydroxymethylation compared to control rats ( p = 0.054).

The CMR results revealed more severe LV adverse remodeling in the CABG+SVR group, as evidenced by larger left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), but this was only marginally statistically significant (P=0.055 and P=0.079, respectively).

IC measures were similar for the 30 min treadmill walk, but CHO and fat oxidation between treatments were only marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.055, and 0.071, respectively).

Intervention effects on frontal lobe activation In the hemodynamic response of the prefrontal cortex measured by all channels of fNIRS, the group-by-time interaction effect was only marginally statistically significant in the STROOP incongruent task ( p = 0.055; Figure 2D ).

Changes in the scores for the SSQoL-C subscale of the Upper Extremity scale were marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.055). 3.5.

The within-subjects effects test showed a marginally statistically significant effect of time ( F = 3.006, df = 1.83, p = 0.057).

As shown in Table 3 , GC gender is marginally statistically significant in the context of additional predictor variables with lower CARE scores for male GC compared with female GC (B = −2.345, one‐tailed p = 0.057).

The steepest rise among males in relative terms was recorded among the younger age group, with a 15% annual increase (95% CI: −1%, 32%); this increasing trend over the first period was only marginally statistically significant ( P = 0.057).

The only factor that was marginally statistically significant (chi2 = 5.68; p = 0.058) was having a partner with maternity/paternity leave to care for the baby.

Some selective attention measures, such as the TMT-A, reached marginally statistically significant group*time interactions: ( F (1, 24) = 3.926, p = 0.059, partial η 2 = 0.141) and executive function measures, such as the Stroop Colors and Words ( F (1, 24) = 4.243, p = 0.05, partial η 2 = 0.150), but there was still a large effect size ( Cohen, 1977 ).

Regarding ET-1, increased serum levels were detected in the IPF-OSA group, compared with IPF patients without OSA, although this result was marginally statistically significant (P=0.06) ( Table III ; Fig. 3 ).

We did not find a statistically significant main effect for role (F = 0.15, p = 0.70) or accuracy of symptom interference (F = 1.52, p = 0.22; means, accurate = 46.25, overestimated = 42.83, underestimated = 45.37), and the role × accuracy interaction effect was marginally statistically significant (F = 2.08, p = 0.06; patient means, accurate = 48.43, overestimated = 44.54, underestimated = 42.34; caregiver means, accurate = 44.06, overestimated = 41.04, underestimated = 48.15).

General TEQ scores remained quite stable, with a marginally statistically significant increase ( p = 0.06).

There was a marginally statistically significant association between the two variables ( p = 0.06).

Consistent with H2b, Model 1 indicates that as state fragility increased, a country’s likelihood of issuing a SAHO decreased, but the effect was marginally statistically significant (p < 0.06).

In the second analysis, focused on data from the mixed stream condition, the ANOVA showed that the main effect of word type reached a marginally statistically significant level, F (1,16) = 4.111, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.204, pw = 0.478.

As necrosis score, only a marginally statistically significant was found among microsatellite instability (MSS) individuals in DFS ( P = 0.06; Supplementary Fig.

longisporum DNA in the local and systemic treatments, but differences were only marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.061 and p = 0.092, respectively).

In this model, steroid therapy remained the sole independent predictor of VF progression, although it was marginally statistically significant (OR: 8.260 (95 % CI: 0.909–75.095), p = 0.061). 4 Discussion In this study, which enrolled metastatic patients with lung cancer and melanoma, it was found that 7.4 % (10/135) experienced VFs that are notoriously expression of skeletal fragility [9] .

The Effect of Perceived Physical Safety on Desire for Female Wealth-Signalling Products For wealth-signalling products and the physical safety scenario, the estimation results indicated that for subjects who were given the safe (secure) scenario, their change in desirability was on average −0.28 and marginally statistically significant at the 7% level (t = −1.88, p = 0.063; equivalently, F (1,75) = 3.551, p = 0.063), while for those that were given the harsh scenario, their change in desirability was on average −1.07 and strongly statistically significant (F (1,75) = 47.987, p = 1.271 × 10 −9 ).

Additionally, with respect to the changes in blood pressure following the 8-week trial, only a moderate reduction in the level of SBP was observed in those who consumed RBO compared with controls, although this difference was marginally statistically significant (baseline adjusted mean (SD): 125.74 (7.14) mmHg vs 129.89 (7.32) mmHg; effect size: -0.58 (-1.18 – -0.03); P value = 0.064, using ANCOVA test) (Table 2 ).

Mean PAC increased monotonically with serial position, however the pairwise increase was only marginally statistically significant between positions R1-2 and R5-6, t (54) = 2.29, p = 0.065 (see Fig 5 ).