“marginally significant”

An ANOVA with consistency and pronoun type as within-subjects factors revealed a marginally significant main effect of pronoun type ( F (1,31) = 4.12, p = 0.05, MSE = 32.03), and the percentage of correct responses for Nin was lower than that for Ni (93.13% vs. 95.16%).

This association remained marginally significant in Model 3 (β = 0.013; 95% CI: 0.000–0.026; p = 0.050).

In addition, there were main effects of Source ( F 1,38 = 5.33, p = 0.03; indicating higher accuracy for self than other conditions) and Distortion ( F 1,38 = 54.82, p < 0.001; indicating higher accuracy for undistorted than distorted conditions), and a marginally significant Diagnosis × Source × Distortion interaction ( F 1,38 = 4.08, p = 0.05).

However, in deaths from infection, patients with HbA1c≥8% showed a worse survival only in the patients who underwent PD ( P = 0.050, marginally significant) ( Fig 5 ).

In contrast, in the elaborative rehearsal condition, a marginally significant interaction emerged between subsequent memory, modality, and scalp location, F (1, 25) = 4.23, MSE = 11.4, p = .050.

Changes in Depressive Symptoms The ANOVA testing for changes in depressive symptoms demonstrated a marginally significant main effect of time-by-group interaction (F(1, 79) = 3.82, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.05), indicating a marginally significant difference between the groups post-intervention.

Competing risks and mortality The Fine and Gray sub distribution hazard model showed that revision surgery was associated with a 78% higher hazard of reoperation compared to ORIF, with the result being marginally significant (HR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.00–3.15, p = 0.050).

The museum model results indicated that Leucocytozoon was a marginally significant predictor of MaRNAV‐6 infection (β = 2.87, SE = 1.46, z = 1.96, p = 0.050), while Haemoproteus was not significant (β = 0.04, SE = 0.81, z = 0.05, p = 0.963; Table 4 ).

The third cluster was marginally significant with P = 0.05.

Though significant differences were found among different age groups [ F (3, 68.9 = 08) = 4.72, p = 0.005], post-hoc analysis showed that there was only a marginally significant difference between 21–30 and 41–50 age groups ( t = 0.52, p = 0.05).

The interaction at time segment 5 (1600 - 2000 ms after word presentation) was qualified by larger event-related synchronization for the out-of-tune-fast group during background+ (F(1,14) = 6.3, p = 0.025, eta 2 = 0.13, marginally significant after Bonferroni-Holm correction at the level of p = 0.05).

Increased connectivity in the DMN in gamma 2 (65–80 Hz) at 6 years was related to worse performance on working memory tasks at 8 years, but correlations were marginally significant for backward digit recall (rho = −0.31, P = 0.05) and block recall (rho = −0.27, P = 0.08).

The interaction between proposer identity, allocation motive, and offer type was marginally significant [ F (1,85) =4.61, p < 0.05, η p 2 =0.06], and post multiple comparisons indicated that when fair offers were presented in a random motive, the rejection rate for depressed college student proposers (11.67%) was significantly lower than that of health college student proposers (31.11%) [ F (1,85) =10.62, p < 0.01, η p 2 =0.11]; when the proposer was a healthy college student, the rejection rate of a fair offer for selfish motives was lower than the rejection rate of a fair offer for a random motive [ F (1,85) =13.95, p < 0.001, η p 2 =0.14] (see Table 1 and Figure 2 for details).

However, left-sided location and AB of SRH were more common in the rebleeding group than in the non-rebleeding group, and these differences were considered marginally significant ( P = 0.05 and P = 0.08, respectively).

Correlation between foveal retinal sensitivity and foveal cystoid space intensity was moderate and marginally significant ( r = −0.43, P = 0.05).

The mean number of SICI trials retained was greater than 20 trials in both groups (mean number of trials for patients = 20.78 (5.03); mean number of trials for controls = 23.14 (2.59)); there was only a marginally significant difference in the number of trials between groups (t = 2.0, P = 0.05).

When they investigated the risk factors they found a statistically marginally significant increased risk (p = 0.05) of females having these glaucomas.

In men, the decision authority was associated with the number of sickness absence days, though marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

We also found that additional seven SNPs in six genes showed marginally significant association with NIHL ( P > 0.05 and < 0.1).

The difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Table 3 ). 2.3.

Interestingly, nurses’ extent of being educated in the subject wasn’t significantly related to their years of professional experience ( χ 2 (4) = 5.8; p = 0.22), whereas for physicians we found a marginally significant relationship ( χ 2 (4) = 9.3; p = 0.05).

Multiple-pollutant models (in which three pollutants of PM2.5, SO 2 and NO 2 were included together) examined the independence of any significant or marginally significant ( P values ≈0.05) associations observed in single-pollutant models.

At two months, we observed a trend towards downregulation of 45S and Rrn3 expression in CR fed rats, which was marginally significant ( p -value = 0.05) for Rrn3 .

There was a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (1, 59) = 3.88, p = 0.05, η 2 p = 0.06, because children who were given credibility information at test ( M = 0.56, SD = 0.14) reported more details from the credible website than those not provided with information ( M = 0.47, SD = 0.15).

However, the testosterone by APOE4 interaction on p-Tau in the overall sample appeared to be mostly driven by women in that the testosterone and p-Tau relationship was marginally significant among female APOE4 carriers ( B = − 18.06, β = − 0.34, SE = 8.89, p = .05) but not among female non-carriers ( B = − 0.27, β = − 0.01, SE = 5.1, p = .96; Fig. 3 ).