“only marginally significant”

Only two out of the 13 parcellations yielded significant ROI-pairs at the p<0.05 significance level (‘Power264’ and ‘Talairach’), while a third parcellation produced only marginally significant ROI-pairs (‘Shen100’, p = 0.055)—see Table 8 and Fig 5 .

Combination with other thrombopoietic agents including thrombopoietin or recombinant human interleukin-11 (rhiL-11) significantly enhanced the outcome of avatrombopag treatment ( P =0.006), while splenectasis hindered the increase in platelet count, although the difference was only marginally significant ( P =0.055).

However, the difference was only marginally significant and the effect was small, t (112) = −1.94, p = .055, d = −0.36.

Clusterin manifestation was not found to be a significant prognostic indicator ( P = 0.312; Figure 4 ), and lymphovascular invasion was only marginally significant ( P = 0.055).

Although the main effect of stimulation type was only marginally significant ( F [2,16] = 4.432, p = .055, η 2 = .356; with Greenhouse–Geisser correction due to a significant Mauchly's test of sphericity), there was a highly significant effect of the linear trend component of stimulation type ( F [1,8] = 21.547, p = .002, η 2 = .729), which prompted further scrutiny by post hoc pairwise t tests with Bonferroni correction.

Parents showed a significant decrease in days of opioid use over time ( β : −0.34, p < .05) and were more likely to report total past-month abstinence from all drugs ( β : −0.06), but the difference was only marginally significant for past-month opioid abstinence ( β : −1.45; p = 0.055) ( Schaeffer et al., 2021 ). 3.4.

Indeed, when allelic richness was compared without CapIsr, the difference between populations disappeared (Kruskal–Wallis test, χ 2 = 4.745, df = 9, P = 0.856), and the difference between habitat types became only marginally significant (Kruskal–Wallis test, χ 2 = 5.804, df = 2, P = 0.055).

The total effect of FFI on communicative competence was negative and only marginally significant (β = −0.25 to −0.44, p = 0.055, 95% CI [−0.44, −0.06]).

At the wettest site (Pretoriuskop) grass biomass below tree canopies increased with tree height but that relationship was only marginally significant (adjusted R 2 = 10.2%, p = 0.055; Figure 2d ).

Social problem-solving skills (b=-0.99, p = 0.035) were a significant mediator of intervention effects on depression (Path a*b), whereas the mediating effect of behavioral activation was only marginally significant (b=-0.60; p = 0.055).

2 ), but the difference was only marginally significant (t 78 = −1.951, p = 0.055).

Inactive and intermittent-foragers showed similar trends of prophylactic grooming, but differences were only marginally significant (Wilcoxon test: W = 687, p = 0.055 for inactive; W = 56, p = 0.085 for intermittent-foragers).

However, the unfavorable genotypes became only marginally significant (p=0.055).

3 While orthogonal planned contrasts do not typically require adjustment for multiple comparisons, as they are considered protected from inflated Type I error rates, it should be noted that given three contrasts, an adjustment for three comparisons would render this effect only marginally significant: Bonferroni-Holm correction – p = 0.055; Dunn correction – p = 0.054.

Although the experimental group showed higher average scores, the difference between groups was only marginally significant ( p = 0.055), likely due to the small sample size ( n = 23).

The same was seen in SCA2, though only marginally significant, probably due to the low number of patients (Spearman rho=-0.67, CI:0.92,-0.04, p =0.055).

32%) was only marginally significant ( p = 0.055).

Respondents’ perception of water quality was positively associated with the likelihood of boiling water (OR = 1.28), although this was only marginally significant ( p = 0.055).

As already reported by several previous studies [8] , [13] , we also observed a similar functional connectivity between face- and voice sensitive areas for normal participants, although the results were only marginally significant ( p = 0.055 FWE corrected for ROI; Fig. 4C ).

The transfer block effect was also significant, F (1, 36) = 38.8, MSE = 41,094.99, p < .001, η 2 .52, and there was an average increase in RTs of 47 ms when a new sequence was suddenly presented. Although this transfer cost was almost twice as large for participants in the control condition as it was for participants in the RNG condition (62 ms and 32 ms, respectively), the interaction between Transfer and Condition was only marginally significant, F (1, 36) = 3.9, MSE = 4,160.21, p = .055, η 2 .098.

Although the main effect of atomoxetine on decision noise was only marginally significant, F (1,252) = 3.71, P = 0.055, there was a significant interaction of treatment with horizon, F (2, 252) = 4.73, P < .01, indicating that the increase in decision noise from baseline to longer horizons was smaller in the drug condition than in the placebo condition ( Fig 3b and 3c ; Table 1 ).

However, the interaction was only marginally significant, F (1, 66) = 3.80, p = 0.055.

After controlling for the covariates (age, education, area, safety knowledge and behavioral risk score), acute pesticide poisoning was 70% more likely to occur among female than among male applicators (AOR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.99-2.91), but the difference was only marginally significant (p = 0.055).

While self-esteem was only marginally significant ( p = .055), stress remained significant ( p < .01) after adjustment for employment status.

S1a), even though the difference in LA between treatments within ANRi plants was statistically only marginally significant ( P = 0.055).