“only marginally significant”

The unilateral approach appears to decrease the likelihood of new fractures; however, this decrease is only marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

For example, the crucial interaction between the humanness of the emotion terms and conditions reported by Castano and Giner-Sorolla [ 48 ] is statistically significant in their Study 2 but only marginally significant in Study 1, reported as “ p <.06 ” (p. 808).

Furthermore, although the module-trait correlations in WGCNA were only marginally significant ( P = 0.06 and P = 0.07), downstream analyses, such as functional enrichment and immune cell association, strongly supported the relevance of these modules.

When both uncinate WMH and ILF WMH were entered into a model to predict cognition (independent of age, sex, and education), uncinate WMH remained significant ( p = 0.03) while ILF WMH was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

Consistent with Hypothesis 3 (age-related reduction in adaptive sampling), the effect was only marginally significant in older adults, F (1, 39) = 3.63, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.09.

PSS: 20.79 kg/m2) was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06 ), and the grip force (SSS: 411 N vs.

The main effect of framing condition was only marginally significant ( z = −1.86, p = 0.06).

Although the relationship between the Monkey game and Word Recall Backward seemed to be stronger than the relationship between the Odd-One-Out and Word Recall Backward tasks, this difference was only marginally significant ( Z H = 1.91, p = .06).

HIV infection was the only marginally significant independent predictor of survival probability on the acute admission ward (hazards ratio 2.87, P = 0.06).

However, the association with EFS was only marginally significant ( P = 0.060).

When we re-ran the analysis and stratified by smoking status, the difference in VA-FI was only marginally significant in non-smokers ( Z = 1.89, p = 0.06; GW: 0.09 ± 0.09; non-GW: 0.10 ± 0.10) and insignificant in smokers ( Z = 1.04, p = 0.30; GW: 0.19 ± 0.11; non-GW: 0.21 ± 0.12; see Figure 2 ).

Follow-up paired t -tests indicated that the beneficial effect of W1 concreteness was significant in the conceptual combination condition [ t (23) = 6.35, p <0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.28], but only marginally significant in the frequency-comparison condition [ t (23) = 2.00, p = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.41].

The correlation between rumination and current depressive symptoms, and correlation between rumination and trait anxiety were only marginally significant ( r = 0.35, p < 0.06; r = 0.33, p < 0.08, respectively).

Wood consumption was higher in females (15.8±14.0%) than in males (5.2±3.6%), but this pattern was only marginally significant (SEX; χ 2 = 3.5, df = 1, P = 0.06).

A chi-square test revealed that the four groups exhibited no significant differences in terms of sex (χ 2 = 1.95, p = 0.58) or grade taught (χ 2 = 1.88, p = 0.60) and only marginally significant differences in terms of whether they were head teachers (χ 2 = 7.58, p = 0.06).

The effect of affective reaction on sunk-cost scores was only marginally significant under low cognitive load, β = .21, t (123) = 1.90, p = .060, η p 2 = .05.

In agreement with previous studies in the maritime Antarctic that have found no influence of soil pH on soil bacterial alpha diversity or community composition 10 , 15 , or in which pH has been identified as an only marginally significant predictor ( P > 0.06) for the frequencies of C and N cycling genes 14 , soil pH had no influence on bacterial alpha or beta diversity in the present study.

bassiana , but the differences were only marginally significant ( p = 0.06–0.10).

Linear mixed models that stratified the PD group according to PD phenotype identified strong associations between each phenotype (TD, ID, and PIGD) and decreased MI although identified parameters were only marginally significant (P = 0.06, 0.05, 0.15).

The main effect of Congruency Level of Previous Trial was only marginally significant ( F (1, 22) = 2.62, p = .06, η p 2 = .1). 4 Discussion Similar to the results of Experiment 2, the CSE was less pronounced in target/distractor category alternation trials than in target/distractor category repetition trials.

The same students had an OR of 0.68 of reporting behavioural problems due to their drinking, but this effect was only marginally significant (p = 0.06).

When including alexithymia as a covariate (RM-MANCOVA), the affective priming effect was only marginally significant [congruence: F (1,30) = 3.8, p = 0.06].

However, when comparing the intention-to-treat approach with the per-protocol analysis, slightly differing results emerged (ITT: significant main effects of interactions between footbath condition and time ( F (4, 317) = 2.96, p =0.02) and between health status and time ( F (2, 317) = 3.65, p =0.03); PP: both interactions were only marginally significant (footbath condition x time: F (2, 277) = 2.31, p =0.06; health status × time: F (2, 277) = 3.02, p =0.05)). 3.7.

The two-way interaction was only marginally significant, F (1,9) = 4.61, p = .060.

Despite this assay-effect, preferences were highly correlated between assays (r = 0.94), though with only four lines tested, this correlation is only marginally significant ( p = 0.06).