“only marginally significant”

In our study, other HCP characteristics were not significant, while professional role was only marginally significant ( p = 0.050), possibly due to limited statistical power. 4.3.

Species was a highly significant predictor of ASV alpha diversity in the bees (χ 2 9 = 125.34, P < 0.001), while diet was only marginally significant after controlling for species (χ 2 2 = 5.98, P = 0.050).

Pairwise comparisons revealed that the BDOC:BTDN and BTDN:BTDP ratios were significantly different from their total or inorganic counterparts ( P < .001), while the difference in C:P ratios was only marginally significant ( P = .05; Fig. 2B ).

The child molester group reported significantly lower levels of secure attachment (though the multivariate effect was only marginally significant, p = .05).

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 ).

This result is only marginally significant when SDNN is calculated from all data, but is significant p < 0.05 when task changes are controlled. p -values are adjusted for family-wise error rate over all signals in the Table 1 .

When compared with baseline, the increase in telomerase activity in the intervention group after 22 weeks was only marginally significant ( d , 0.13; 95% CI, 0.001-0.27; P = .05), whereas the mean change in the wait-list control group was not statistically significant ( d , −0.03; 95% CI, −0.16 to 0.10; P = .64).

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 ).

Correlation of ‘identifying’ with agreeableness was stronger than that of TAS-DIF with agreeableness, although this difference was only marginally significant ( Z = –1.96, p = .05).

Higher education level was associated with lower rate of change in disability for women but not men, although the differential impact between the two groups was only marginally significant (β Education slope : −0.061, p > 0.05 men vs. -0.066, p < 0.01 women, ∆χ 2 = 3.623, p = 0.057).

The concentration of DBEP was found to be only marginally significant correlated with urinate habit (OR 4.042; 95% CI 1.002–16.295, p = 0.050) (Table 5 B).

Surprisingly, although 22G-RNAs silence TEs, we found that the total levels of 22G-RNAs mapping to TEs were increased in lines maintained at smaller population sizes, although this increase was only marginally significant (Jh, p = 0.05; LR, p = 0.07; Fig. 5 d). 22G-RNA levels mapping to TEs targeted by piRNAs behaved similarly (Additional File 1 : Fig.

The pooled analysis indicated a trend toward reduced anxiety in the music group, although the effect was only marginally significant (SMD = −0.40, 95% CI: −0.80 to 0.00, p = 0.05).

While most associations were strongly statistically significant at P < 0.001, a number were only marginally significant ( P < 0.05) and therefore not so at more conservative thresholds.

Single-trial analyses revealed similar patterns, with a significant leftward shift in change-group start times and no reliable shift in the no-change group, although the difference between groups was only marginally significant in this case [Change group: M = −33% ± 5% SEM, t (8) = −3.27, p<0.05; No-change group: M = −4% ± 11% SEM, t (8) = −0.34, p>0.05; Change vs.

While the previous results were only marginally significant (P < 0.05), consistent with previous findings ( Flores et al., 2014 ; Mehta et al., 2018 ) and ecological theory ( McCann, 2000 ; Schindler et al., 2010 ; Tilman, 1999 ), baseline species Shannon diversity was positively associated with stability (FDR = 0.014; Fig. 6 F ), i.e., individuals with more diverse communities were more resilient to change than individuals with lower diversity.

In contrast, problem-solving showed only marginally significant and negligible sex differences favoring women (−0.05 SDs, 95% CI = [−0.09, 0.00], p = .05).

In general, the clinical sample had larger means than the controls for depression (t = −4.05, p = 0.00, d = 0.91), anxiety (t = −6.34, p = 0.00, d = 1.45), NATs (t = −2.64, p = 0.01, d = 0.61), IBs (t = −2.91, p = 0.00, d = 0.67), fatigue (t = −2.44, p = 0.02, d = 0.55), and health status (t = −6.38, p = 0.00, d = 1.42), with the exception of DAs, which was only marginally significant (t = −1.96, p = 0.05, d = 0.45).

However, the decitabine effect was not significant, and the overall shock effect was only marginally significant ( F (1,3) = 7.90, P < 0.05 one-tail in an ANCOVA with the change in siphon withdrawal as the covariate) and decitabine did not block it ( F [1,3) = 8.08, P < 0.05 one-tail versus no shock).

Males were more likely (92/94, 98%) to report that they were more comfortable with the imaging process compared to females (48/54, 89%); however, this was only marginally significant ( P =.05; Table 3 ).

Advanced disease stage (stage III/IV) was also a more frequent finding among exposed patients (77.8%) than among unexposed controls (55.7%) although it was only marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

If data were examined by date, A max differed significantly with substrate in April ( F 1, 18 = 7.15, P = 0.02); but in July, differences were only marginally significant ( F 1, 18 = 4.24, P = 0.05).

Although only marginally significant, contemporary Ne was related to the Ne of the past (Ne at the time of introduction, NANC; r = 0.46, 0.1 > p > 0.05).

When the ANOVA was only marginally significant ( p < 0.05), post hoc tests are reported in the text only.

Planned comparisons, which were directly encoded in the model, indicated faster response times for the humor compared to the control group, b = −22.0, SE = 8.86, t (95.0) = 2.49, p < 0.05, while the comparison of valid and invalid trials was only marginally significant, b = −3.72, SE = 1.89, t (94.3) = −1.97, p = 0.05.There was a tendency to respond faster to invalid trials.