“significant at the trend level”

Controlling for child baseline symptomatology, this result was only significant at the trend level ( p = 0.053). 4.

When performing the same PLS analyses based on MD in each of the five brain regions ( Figure 2 , second row), only component 1 was significantly related to PTA (MD COMP1 : r = 0.59, p = 0.015), the second component was only significant at the trend level (MD COMP2 : r = 0.45, p = 0.054), and the third component was not significant (MD COMP3 : r = 0.09, p = 0.381).

The Context × Group interaction was significant at the trend level, F 2,140 = 2.93, p = .057, η 2 = 0.02.

College education was significant at the trend level ( p = 0.06) only when age and age 2 were included as covariates.

When controlling for individual responsiveness by entering (mean-centred) single-response parameter estimates as a covariate, this effect was still significant at the trend level ( F 1, 20 = 3.89; ε = 1; p = 0.06).

The mean time to first improvement was 6.9 days in the AAP group and 5.8 days in the typical antipsychotic drug group; the difference was significant at the trend level ( P =0.063).

S−P+), which was significant at the trend level only, t (68) = 1.91, p = 0.067.

More specifically, in the case of TOL, significant correlations were found with the following indicators: Execution time ( r = 0.60; p = 0.009), Total time ( r = 0.66; p = 0.002), Time above 1 min ( r = 0.62; p = 0.006), Total errors ( r = 0.50; p = 0.035), and a correlation significant at the trend level with the Extra moves ( r = 0.42; p = 0.07).

The age difference between genders was only significant at the trend level ( p = 0.070).

The interaction effect of both factors was significant at the trend level: F = 2.67; p = 0.071; η 2 = 0.012.

Including both a positive THC screen and past or current SUD as additional covariates in the analyses strengthened the main group effect [F(1,41) = 9.02, p = 0.005; partial η 2 = 0.18, generally considered a medium effect size]; the group × region interaction continued to be significant at the trend level ( p = 0.077), Greenhouse–Geisser corrected.

44%); however, this was only statistically significant at the trend level ( p = 0.08).

The two-way interaction of counting type and Simon task scores was significant at the trend level [ F (1, 40) = 3.05, p = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.07].

When disease duration was included in the model as a continuous variable, the interaction between age and childhood‐onset SLE was significant at the trend level (Model 4: b = −0.007; 95% CI: −0.015 to 0.001; P = 0.083).

Including the interaction factor of fixations number and time in the model improved the proportion of explained variance by 1%, but made the model significant at the trend level ( R 2 = .214; p = .086) (Model 5).

Correlation analysis of the frontopolar cortex with the palatability rating revealed a negative Spearman’s Rho correlation of r = −0.8 which was significant at the trend level (p = 0.10).

However, the latter difference was only significant at the trend level ( p < 0.10).

However, at visit 1, the number of positives was higher in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group, which was significant at the trend level (0.050 ≤ p < 0.100).

The interaction effect between the condition and familiarity (F (1, 12) = 4.033; P = 0.068) was significant at the trend level.

The voxel-wise explicatory time-by-group analysis comparing responders and nonresponders revealed a time-by-group interaction (increased FC higher in responders relative to nonresponders) significant at the trend level (p corr = 0.053).

Interestingly, a recent ESM study examining individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (a syndrome associated with learning difficulties, a range of physical health problems, and psychiatric comorbidity—including psychosis), reported that cortisol levels in the healthy control group, but not the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome group, increased in parallel with activity related stress, but that this association in controls was only significant at the trend level ( 80 ).

The time factor (F = 2.96; p = 0.096) was significant at the trend level, indicating a decline in goal and success orientation in the course of treatment ( Table 6 ).

The results did not change substantially when patients with DAT were excluded, although the interaction effects of the OCRS with MRI markers were reduced and only significant at the trend level ( Supplementary Tables 2 , 3 ).

Previously significant differences between the OCD and OCD + ANX groups on the CDI Total [ F (2,172) = 2.8, P = 0.06], CBCL internalizing[ F (2,180) = 2.7, P = 0.07], and CBCL anxiety/depression [ F (2,180) = 2.8, P = 0.07] scores were only significant at the trend level.

Loss: F (1,13) = 8.30, p < 0.05], an effect only significant at the trend level in the analysis of the complete VTA ROI.