“only marginally significant”

Also when testing only whether the females from cooperatively breeding species landed more often on the provisioning perch than the females from species that do not breed cooperatively, the results were only marginally significant (Welch t-test: t = −1.64, df = 8.30, p-value=0.069).

A similar effect, although only marginally significant, was observed for hookworm infections ( p = 0.069).

When considering the full model with social environment determinants, HIV knowledge was only marginally significant ( p = 0.069).

For the rhyme-related and unrelated comparison in the time window of 400–450 ms, the main effect of distractor type was not significant, the main effect of ROI was significant (distractor type: F (18,1) = 2.3, p = 0.146; ROI: F (144,8) = 13.89, p < 0.001), and the interaction between distractor type and ROI was only marginally significant ( F (144,8) = 1.87, p = 0.069).

2 ), this difference was only marginally significant (Mann–Whitney U test = 128.5, P = 0.069).

Although the autonomy by relatedness interaction was only marginally significant for Neglect ( p = .069), the effects were in the expected direction (β = −.17, t = 1.64, p = .10, 95% CI = [–0.3658, 0.0339] for low levels of autonomy vs. β = −.42, t = 2.61, p = .01, 95% CI = [–0.7360, –0.1026] for high levels of autonomy).

Ammonium addition also appeared to increase necrosis incidence, although the effect was only marginally significant (p = 0.0692), likely due to the high variability of this variable.

7 E), with a similar but only marginally significant difference in trial 2 (p = 0.0694) (Supplementary Table S2 ).

By day 2, the difference was only marginally significant ( P = .07), and there was no significant difference in shoulder pain scores between the 2 groups after 2 days.

The effect of target type was only marginally significant (b = -0.038, SE = 0.02, t(92) = -1.833, p = 0.070), and the interaction was not significant (b = 0.018, SE = 0.026, t(1367) = 0.728, p = 0.466).

The relationship between BG susceptibility and attention showed a curvilinear trend: although the individual polynomial terms were only marginally significant (linear: t = 1.83, p = 0.07; quadratic: t = −1.71, p = 0.09), the overall nonlinear model reached significance ( F 3,326 = 3.19, p = 0.02), indicating that both low and high BG susceptibility values were associated with reduced attention performance.

The only marginally significant effect was observed in the left MFUS-Text ( Fig. 3 F ), where responses to text were somewhat higher in the lexical task than the other two tasks ( p = 0.07).

Elecsys t-tau and p-tau181 levels, as well as their ratios with Aβ 1-42 , were also markedly higher in pathology-confirmed AD compared to non-AD dementia (n = 8; all p < 0.001; Figure 1 ) and separated these groups with very high accuracy (AUC 0.94–0.97); differences in Aβ 1-42 levels, however, were only marginally significant ( p = 0.07, AUC [95% confidence interval] 0.71 [0.47–0.96]) ( Figure 2 ).

Post-error accuracy was also higher at Time 2 (0.96±0.01) than Time 1 (0.92±0.02), although this effect was only marginally significant ( t (31)=1.88, P =0.07).

The mortality rates of the experimental groups were significantly higher at 25 °C than at 15 °C for CgA1-1 ( χ 2 = 5.30, df = 1, p < 0.05), while only marginally significant for CgA1-2 ( χ 2 = 3.20, df = 1, p = 0.07).

No significant correlations ( p s > 0.1) were found between the ELS subcales and lifetime ayahuasca intake (ELS-v: ρ = 0.08, n.s.; ELS-f: ρ = 0.01, n.s.), and only marginally significant correlations emerged between the ELS subscales and the age of initial ayahuasca intake (ELS-v: r = 0.10, p = 0.07; ELS-f: r = 0.13, p = 0.05).

CAD index itself was only marginally significant as a predictor of survival in this model ( p = 0.07 for rs1462845 and rs1915585 and p = 0.04 for rs6788787).

However, the effect of the housing condition was only marginally significant [ F (1, 32) = 3.41, P = 0.07].

With respect to epidemiological characteristics with binomial values, Fusobacterium was associated with alcohol consumption and KRAS mutation ( P = 0.088 and P = 0.094), and Parvimonas was associated with tumor location and KRAS mutation, although the difference was only marginally significant ( P = 0.070, Table 4 ).

Severe preoperative LAVVR and AV valve abnormalities were only marginally significant ( P =0.07 and 0.19, respectively) ( Table 3 ).

However, the difference was statistically only marginally significant regarding the incidence of PONV in the 5 studied checkpoints ( p = 0.07) ( Table 3 ).

Summing over both coding and noncoding sites, we also find that mean selective constraint is also reduced somewhat in humans, compared with chimpanzees (0.254 versus 0.279), although this difference is only marginally significant (Bootstrap t-test, P<0.07).

In this experiment, individuals selected the sample from population A more often than B, but the difference was only marginally significant ( p < .07).

The interaction of Stimulation Level × Group was only marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 3.49, p = .07, η p 2 = .08, presumably indicating a more pronounced differentiation between the two stimulation intensity for the placebo group.

Interpersonal distance increased after exclusion only as reflected in the significant effect of dummy 2 ( T = –5.31, β = –0.64, p < 0.001), while dummy 1 was only marginally significant ( T = –1.85, β = –0.22, p = 0.07).