“only marginally significant”

Inspection and palpation in cardiac examination were more error-prone in male than female students, although the differences were only marginally significant (both p = 0.054), and percussion in cardiac examination was more error-prone in female students ( p = 0.008, Table 4 ).

For the longest Lengths (1 and 2), there were significant differences in errors between the 4-year-olds and all other age groups, (all ps < .01), and between 8-year-old children and Adults, (all ps < .05, except for Length 1 which was only marginally significant, p = .054).

64 [IQR: 47–86] ng/L), but the difference was only marginally significant ( p = .054).

Familiar partner recognition by males There were significant differences in TF rates of males among trials (repeated measures GLM, F 3,27 = 3.95, P = 0.018) and between treatments ( F 1,9 = 28.69, P < 0.0005) but the interaction between trial and treatment was only marginally significant ( F 3,27 = 2.89, P = 0.054).

However, there were only marginally significant improvements in positive symptoms (SMD = 0.340, 95% CI = −0.006 to 0.686, p = 0.054) and negative symptoms (SMD = 0.399, 95% CI = −0.059 to 0.857, p = 0.088) in studies conducted in European countries.

For the negative traits POs were lower for ingroup than outgroup, but the difference was only marginally significant ( t = 2.55, p = .054, Cohen’s d = 0.25).

When the variances of these distributions were compared by using an F-test , the analysis showed that the difference between beta-based and HFO-based border prediction was only marginally significant [ F (1, 2) = 2.42, p = 0.054] while there was no statistically significant difference between the variance of individual sub-band powers (beta and HFO) and fused power [ F (1, 3) = 2.26, p = 0.075; F (2, 3) = 0.94, p = 0.88, respectively].

Kallikreins KLK1, KLK10, and KLK14 were not sexually dimorphic whilst KLK13 was female biased but only marginally significant (p = 0.054) because it was detected only in three females.

Branch WD showed a similar trend, though it was weaker and only marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.09, P = 0.054; see Supporting Information—Table S5 ).

W- and WHo-exposed scallops showed a small but significant accumulation in ubiquitin conjugates at 26°C compared with 18°C and 22°C (W group, P <0.018) or with 14°C (Who group, P =0.010), whereas the accumulation in WHc-exposed scallops was only marginally significant (14°C versus 26°C, P =0.054).

The blind model showed a 2-way interaction involving WordType and Area (F 2,24 = 19.07, ε = 0.43, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.63), but the 4-way interaction of the factors WordType, PeriExtra, TemporalFrontal and Area was only marginally significant (F 2,22 = 3.47, ε = 0.95, p = 0.054).

Running the analysis with the larger window yielded qualitatively identical results, with the exception that the interaction between greeble size , vowels , and posteriority was only marginally significant (Greenhouse–Geisser‐adjusted p = 0.054).

Laterality Hypothesis 2a—No difference in hand use frequency Across all experimental phases right-handed sFST (n = 164) were performed more often than left- handed sFST (n = 130) but the difference was only marginally significant (Binomial Test: p = .054; Table 3 ).

1 b), although this effect was only marginally significant ( p = 0.054).

Transition Rates—Visible Patterning For human-visible patterning, a model with one hidden rate was supported over a model without hidden rates ( Table 1 ), though the likelihood-ratio test was only marginally significant (P = 0.054).

However, survival in cancer stage IA–IIIA patients was statistically different using the CKD‐CG formula ( P < 0.001) and only marginally significant using the CKD‐EPI formula ( P = 0.054).

However, this correlation was only marginally significant ( p = .054), meaning it was almost statistically significant but did not quite reach the level of significance at (0.05).

For those over 18 years, being male was only marginally significant ( P =.054).

The effect of the dual-task was to systematically increase the misperception of the point of deviation as predicted, though this trend was only marginally significant (repeated measures ANOVA, Effect of dual task: F [1] , [2] = 16.9, p = 0.054).

The task notation × number range interaction was only marginally significant F (1,26) = 4.057, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.135.

In contrast, though only marginally significant, AFR PLWH with HP2 had lower risk ( OR = 0.111, p = 0.054) of developing NCI compared to people without HP2 ( Figure 2A ).

However, this association was only marginally significant at the 5% level ( b = -1.28, 95% CI: -2.59, 0.02, p = .054).

Analogous results, albeit only marginally significant, were obtained in the duration threshold of large stimulus (diameter of 10°) ( T = 1.96, P = 0.054) ( Figure 5 A ).

Replication of our results in larger studies might be interesting, especially for validating the weak associations between TS of pain and changes in dissociation from pre‐ to post‐stimulation, which showed a small, only marginally significant effect ( r s = −0.41; p = 0.054) in the present study.

3 ; Table 2 ): Females used waters ~ 3185 m deep, with SICs of 9%, whereas males used waters ~ 340 m shallower, at mean depths of 2843 m and SICs 22% greater, at mean concentrations of 33%, although the latter difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.054).