“only marginally significant”

A comparison across the two treatments indicated that the proportion of S-shaped probability weighting functions was higher in the sampling treatment, although the difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.08 , two-sided Fisher’s exact test).

Although the mean difference between causally related and unrelated words (1.97μV) was larger than the mean difference between causally related and hierarchically related words (1.49μV), only marginally significant difference was found between causally related and unrelated words ( p = .08).

Among the additional HAMD‐31 items (also in Table 2 ), the only marginally significant effect in favor of lamotrigine was on item 28 (motor retardation; p = .08, d = .09).

In comparison to the baseline model including only intercepts for fixed and random effects, the addition of a fixed effect of piece significantly improved the fit of the models for articulation and velocity ( p < 0.001 in both cases), but was only marginally significant in the case of asynchrony ( p = 0.08).

forbesi (β = 0.39), though the departure from neutrality was only marginally significant (t = 2.0, df = 9, P = 0.08; Fig 2B , S3 and S5 Tables).

However, on removal of the first function the second was only marginally significant on its own (Λ = 0.90, χ 2 (8) = 13.96, P = .08).

Interestingly, this interaction was significant when comparing the SYNCH1PP condition (preserved BSC) with the ASYNCH3PP condition (strongly manipulated BSC), while the interaction between SYNCH1PP and ASYNCH1PP was only marginally significant (p = 0.08).

As expected, the number of possible combinations negatively affected the individuals' ability to find successful combinations, although this effect was only marginally significant (LRT: χ 2 =3.02, d.f.=1, P =0.08, N =431).

More patients who received upfront steroids had neurologic symptoms at the diagnosis of BM, but this was only marginally significant (68.6% vs. 51.9%, p = 0.08).

According to multivariate analysis, DoI-1 ( P = 0.009, HR 2.03), the total number of examined LNs for N0 (10 or less, P < 0.004, HR 2.63), number of metastatic LNs (≥4, P < 0.001, HR 5.24), and completeness of resection (R2, P = 0.003, HR 66.41) remained significant (Table 5 ), although when the number of metastatic LNs was between 1 and 3, the P -value was only marginally significant ( P < 0.08, HR 1.85).

In contrast, boys scored slightly higher ( M = 114.85, SD = 12.81) than did girls ( M = 107.85, SD = 13.82) in the early adolescent group; however, this difference was only marginally significant [ t (45) = 1.77, p = 0.08].

When this support fell, levels of stress rose but the change was only marginally significant ( p < 0.08).

For information processing outcomes, participants who viewed the scorecard (vs text-only) were more likely to get all comprehension questions correct (98.1% vs 71.2%, P= .004) and to get the recall question correct (94.2% vs 82.7%), although the difference in percentages for recall was only marginally significant ( P =.08).

Daytime and nighttime ‘active’ networks predicted each other well ( r 2 = 0.95), but this result was only marginally significant according to the permutation test ( p = 0.08).

However, after adjusting for UACR reduction, the direct effect remained only marginally significant (β = 5.88; 95% CI: –0.50 to 10.74; P = 0.080), and the path from UACR reduction to eGFR change was not significant (β = 0.00; 95% CI: –0.04 to 0.04; P = 0.871).

When the two groups were directly compared, the difference was only marginally significant [ t (7) = 1.91, p = 0.08].

However, multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that high normal FPG was significantly associated with an elevated A1C ( P = 0.003), whereas an ethnicity effect was only marginally significant when adjusted for FPG ( P = 0.08).

When calculated with the Fisher exact test, the difference between the first year and subsequent years was only marginally significant ( P =.08) due to the small sample size.

Precision in the child and adult arrivals was diminished, not reaching significance in the children and was only marginally significant in the adults (p=.08).

Although this effect was only marginally significant ( P =0.08), it might be specific.

However, the significance level was not sufficient enough for any of them and only marginally significant for ORAC results correlated to fucoxanthin ( p = 0.08), suggesting that the antioxidant activity is the response of a mixture of compounds and their different antioxidant modes of action. 3.

In lower proficiency individuals, the P600 effect was only marginally significant ( Condition : F (1, 26) = 3.39, p = .08; Condition × Ant‐Post : F (3, 78) = 2.28, p = .08, only at Pz : p < .05).

2.39 μg/dL), though this difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.08) [ 79 ].

However, the estimated effect difference is only marginally significant from a statistical perspective (p = 0.08) and highly sensitive to model specification.

Sessions with more neurons showing task rule modulation tended to show lower subspace overlap, but this correlation was modest and only marginally significant (r = -0.32, p = 0.08, Pearson correlation, n = 31 sessions).