Excerpts

In the areas responsible for the word identification system (i.e., left triangular part of the IFG and left insula), only marginally significant effects were observed in the response to the types of words [left IFG: F (2,44) = 3.04, p = 0.058; left insula: F (2,44) = 3.17, p = 0.052].

However, when the expressed emotion was happiness, the difference between the two was marginally significant F (1,61) =3.72, p = 0.058, η 2 p = 0.05.

The expected negative correlation between the MIS-D refocusing subscale and the dysfunctional aspect of perfectionism was only marginally significant ( r = −0.132, p = 0.058; hypothesis 5d).

A borderline significant two-way interaction was found between Target Type and Target Depth, F (1,23) = 3.978, p = 0.058, with participants responding more rapidly to the pure tone targets ( M = 535 ms) than to the white noise targets ( M = 549 ms) in the front, but more slowly to pure tone targets ( M = 551 ms) than to white noise targets ( M = 513 ms) in the rear space.

The model also yielded a marginally significant effect of treatment, F (1,42) = 3.79, p = 0.058, and a significant treatment by phase interaction, F (2,234) = 6.21, p = 0.002, so that the OT treatment led to longer gaze times than the placebo treatment, but only in extinction (Sequential Bonferroni, p < 0.0001).

The interaction between load and scope was close to significance, F (1, 76) = 3.705, p = 0.058.

We observed a strong significant positive correlation between Reduced Mind-wandering and Silence (components of the Silencing category) ( r = 0.72, p < 0.001), a significant negative correlation between Attentional Effort and Reduced Mind-wandering ( r = −0.49, p < 0.05), and a correlation that approached significance between Attentional Effort and Silence ( r = -0.40, p = 0.058) ( Figure 3B ).

A likelihood ratio test comparing this unconstrained model (M3 in Table 7 ) to the most constrained model (M1) was marginally significant ( Δ χ ( Δ d f = 2 ) 2 = 5.68, p = 0.058), ΔRMSEA = 0.01, ΔCFI = 0.01.

This association was marginally significant in Model_3b ( β = −0.13, p = 0.058).

The simple slope for high health goal was not significant but did show a marginally significant trend, t (80) = 1.93, β = 0.85, p = 0.058.

The regression model explained 14.0% of the variance in this criterion variable, which was marginally significant [ F (3, 49) = 2.668, p = 0.058].

As shown in speaker-listener rows in Table 2 , the main effect of experimental role was significant on SBP [ F (1,42) = 5.24, p = 0.027] and DBP [ F (1,42) = 15.16, p = 0.001], marginally significant on NA [ F (1,42) = 3.80, p = 0.058], but not significant on HR [ F (1,42) = 1.12, p = 0.296].

Although there was only a marginally significant interaction between age group and gender, F (1,153) = 3.66, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.02, tests of simple effects indicate that gender differences in donating are significant for 4-year-olds only ( Table 2 ).

The different statement was chosen more frequently than same and not disorders ( same : p = 0.003, not disorders : p = 0.001; p -values were adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures); however, the difference between different and differentiation unnecessary only approached significance ( p = 0.058).

The core member’s cognitive versatility also moderates the negative effect of a disconnected role set on average ALOS, an effect that is significant based on standard thresholds when excluding the physician characteristics that we treat as control variables (Model 8; B = −0.06, p = 0.041), but did not quite reach significance when including those controls ( Table 2 , Model 6; B = −0.05, p = 0.058).

The gender × age interaction emerged as a predictor; young women and men had similar scores that slightly decreased until the breakpoint age, and then, a decrease—although marginally significant—was observed (age after the breakpoint std. beta = −0.14; p = 0.058), maintaining gender differences (see Figure 1C ; Supplementary Table S4 ).

This difference bordered on significance [ F (1, 93) = 3.699, p = 0.058, η 2 = 0.038].

The three-way interaction almost reached significance [ F (1,37) = 3.8, p = 0.058].

The main effect of emotion conditions was marginally significant [ F (1.407, 21.100) = 3.616, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.194], but the main effect of time points and the interaction were all not significant.

The interaction term between Wave 2 sleep duration and Wave 2 cognitive function showed a marginally significant positive prediction for Wave 3 mental health ( β = −0.058, t = −1.897, p = 0.058).

In the morphine-conditioned group, one-way ANOVA with repeated measurement revealed a main effect of test time [ F (3,12) = 13.040, p = 0.001], and LSD post hoc analysis showed significant differences in P1-test ( p = 0.001), P14-test ( p = 0.014) and a marginally significant difference in P28-test ( p = 0.058), compared with pre-test.

On the Knox cube test, there was a borderline significant result at the first performance ( p = 0.058), with closer to equal test results on the second trial.

These main effects were modified by a significant interaction of Condition × Age, F (9, 1014) = 8.31, p < 0.000, a near-significant effect of Condition × Home Language, F (9, 1014) = 1.84, p = 0.058, and a significant interaction of Condition × Age × Home Language, F (27, 1014) = 1.55, p = 0.036.

In the Hungarian sample, there was a marginally significant negative effect on subtle prejudice ( B = −0.099, SE = 0.052, β = −0.180, t = −1.91, p = 0.058).

However, we observed an increasing trend of average fixation rate from C2 to C3 ( Z = 1.88, p = 0.058).