“only marginally significant”

This finding should be interpreted with caution since it was only marginally significant ( p = 0.05) in one out of several tests conducted.

The DASS-A emerged as the only marginally significant predictor of ratings for the ambiguous danger CS D, ρ(49) = −0.27, p = 0.05.

The test repetition effect ( d′ post − d′ pre) was significant for stereo and line drawings (all t s > 2.70, p s < 0.05, Figure 6b , diamonds) but was only marginally significant for shading objects ( t = 1.81, p > 0.05) and not significant for silhouettes ( t = −0.38, p > 0.05).

Effects of steamed WB on postprandial blood variables In Experiment 2, mice fed the WB diet had significantly lower postprandial blood total GIP levels overall compared with mice fed the Control diet (Diet effect p < 0.05), although the difference (diet-by-time interaction) was only marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Figure 2(A )).

However, the effect of bacterial species loss via dilution is only marginally significant ( P = 0.05) when both soils are analyzed together and not any more when the soils are analyzed separately.

The effect of condition was only marginally significant, F (4, 2817.63) = 2.33, p = 0.05, with none of the comparisons between conditions being significant, all p s > 0.10.

In colonies with localized food sources (Feeding trial 1), food dispersal at nest 4 was 79% lower relative to nest 1 after 2 h, though the interaction of time by nest was only marginally significant (0.1 > P > 0.05).

For instance, only floral abundance appears to influence complementary specialization (H 2 ’), but this relationship is only marginally significant (0.10 > p > 0.05; Fig. 4 A).

The group difference, however, was only marginally significant, t (198) = 1.97, p = .050, d = 0.28.

Although nest site showed a significantly positive Mantel correlation ( P < 0.01), the positive correlation showed no or only marginally significant differences from neutral model simulations ( P = 0.05; Fig. 3b ; Supplementary Table 1 ).

In particular, the proportions were significantly higher for HIF1A and EIF5B compared to other genes, although the difference was only marginally significant ( P = 0.05; Permutation test; Fig. 4b ).

Its predictive power with regard to treatment response was only marginally significant and the explained variance was small (N = 261, beta .18, P = .05, R 2 = .11).

The interaction between context and phase was only marginally significant, F (1, 11) = 4.92, p = .05, suggesting that the effect of phase on contextual cueing was now reduced (see Figure 3B ).

Figure 2 C illustrates that this was indeed the case: for IDDs the correlation between DST scores in the two languages was highly significant (Pearson: r = .60, p < .001, Spearman r = .61, p < .001), whereas for controls it was not (Pearson: r = .25, p = .179, Spearman r = .27, p = .151; though the group difference between the strength of the correlations was only marginally significant: Fishers Z-test, z = 1.64, one-sided p < .05; Fig. 2 C; Lenhard & Lenhard, 2014 ).

However, when each climatic variable was individually reduced from the full model, Tmin, Tmax were not significant and rainfall was only marginally significant (AIC = 428, P = 0.05) (Table 1 ).

However, the effect in these bands is only marginally significant (0.01 < p < 0.05 paired t test, corrected for multiple comparisons).

The optically measured oxCCO increase, however, was only marginally significant ( p = 0.05), and the oxCCO data were not directly associated with the LPR changes.

A smaller, though only marginally significant (P<0.05) reduction in the mean number of adherent lymphocytes was noted with Cytochalasin B for L428 only.

roxellana Host gender showed only marginally significant effects on the gut microbial alpha- and beta-diversity ( p = 0.05 − 0.1 in two-way PERMANOVA; Fig. 5 a − b and S3 a − c), while host age was significantly associated with gut microbial diversity indices ( p < 0.05 in both one-way and two-way PERMANOVA; Fig. 5 c − d and S3 d − f).

This response was only marginally significant ( p < 0.05 prior to statistical correction for multiple comparisons).

However, in this case, the difference between Cerro de los Ánsares and Entremuros was only marginally significant (p = 0.05, Tukey test).

The only difference concerned association with tRNAs: while CLR association to tRNAs was only marginally significant in S. cerevisiae and S. bayanus , it was significant in S. mikatae and S. kudriavzevii , although very close to P<0.05 significance threshold.

A positive correlation between CV CL and CV CI is only marginally significant (p < 0.05), while all other correlations are not significant (p > 0.05). Discussion The significant negative correlation between THL and M CA points towards selective observer bias that tends to overestimate the length of the short arm.

Although there were no statistically significant 2-way interactions ( p's > 0.26), follow-up pair-wise t-tests showed that post-training theta power in the eMBT group was decreased in the 3-back condition only compared to baseline ( t (15) = 3.89, p = 0.001), but only marginally significant compared to post-training theta power in the Control group ( t (27) = 2.06, p = 0.05).

While the main effect of synchrony was only marginally significant (F 1,352 = 3.9, p = 0.05), there was an interaction between synchrony and age group (F 1,352 = 7.7, p = 0.006).