“marginally significant”

The interaction coefficient was negative and marginally significant (β = −0.378, t = − 1.97, p = 0.050), indicating that as snacking frequency increased, the positive effect of health literacy on healthy lifestyle awareness weakened.

The results revealed a significant two‐way interaction effect on the problem‐solving related math anxiety subscale (ATS F = 11.54, df = 1, p < .001) and a marginally significant interaction on the school setting‐related math anxiety subscale (ATS F = 3.84, df = 1, p = .050).

Results showed a marginally significant three-way interaction between Bin , Stroop-like task and Experiment , F(3,84) = 2.712, MS e = 197.311, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.088.

Education was marginally significant too, but with a very small effect size [ F (1,80) = 3.97, p = 0.05, η 2 p = 0.05].

We also observed a marginally significant reduction in NC monocytes expressed as a percentage of all monocytes ( p = 0.05; Fig. 9 C; lower left).

A similar trend was observed at high frequencies, though the association was marginally significant ( β = –1.355, p = 0.050).

In addition, a marginally significant association was noted among ESS and PVT lapses ( P =0.05).

Marginally significant difference in survival between the two groups was observed at 30 days ( p = 0.050) but was statistically significant at 60 days ( p = 0.043).

A main effect of group was marginally significant, F 1,45 = 2.86, p < 0.05, one-tailed, MSe = 1.71 suggesting that subjects with a family history of psychiatric illness were marginally less sensitive than controls.

Survival of CWD-negative females among genotypes was marginally significant ( χ 2 = 5.8, df = 2, p = 0.05) with higher survival of 225*F deer compared to 225SS deer.

For the MCH, there was a marginally significant reduction post-treatment (29.25 Q1–Q3: 27.4–30.6) compared to values before the treatment initiation (29 Q1–Q3: 27.1–30.4) in male patients ( p -value < 0.05).

The interaction of Robot Impression × Condition was marginally significant, B = −3.69 [−7.38, 0.006], SE = 1.86, p = .050.

These tests found marginally significant (0.03 < P < 0.05) evidence of deviation from normality of the residuals in three of eight fitted linear models; there was no evidence that the remaining five models deviated from normality ( P > 0.05).

Marginally significant interaction was found between total vitamin C and vitamin C supplementation ( p = 0.05). 3.2.

The association between IncFIA and enrofloxacin was marginally significant ( p = 0.050).

Duncan post-hoc analyses on visual-spatial working memory revealed that, in the Training-first Group (G1), delta 1 (M = 0.85, sem = 0.26) was significantly larger than delta 2 (M = −0.35, sem = 0.22; P < 0.01), with a very large effect (Cohen’s d = 1.21); in contrast, in the Waiting-first Group (G2), the difference between delta 1 (M = −0.19, sem = 0.30) and delta 2 (M = 0.34, sem = 0.25) was marginally significant (P = 0.05) and in the expected direction of a medium-sized improvement after training (Cohen’s d = 0.53).

Side effect self-efficacy beliefs The one-way ANOVA testing side effect control beliefs yielded a marginally significant effect, F (1, 249) = 2.98, p = .05, η p 2 = 0.02.

First, the associations of the selected risk alleles were marginally significant [α (significance level of Bonferroni correction for multiple testing < P <0.05; α=0.05/35 SNPs/three genetic models=0.00048).

In comparison, the path:00982_1 signature displayed a significant predictive capacity in 5 datasets ( P < 0.05) and a marginally significant predictive ability in 2 datasets (0.1 < P > 0.05) in this analysis (Analytical data File 4).

Microbial beta diversity analysis showed a marginally significant difference in overall community composition across groups (R 2 = 0.033, p = 0.05).

There were significant interactions ( P <0.05) between age (<70 vs >80 years) and having any musculoskeletal disease, and BMI (under- or overweight vs normal weight) with reductions in intense PA, and marginally significant interactions ( P >0.05 and <0.1) between age (<70 vs >80 years) and depressive symptoms (MADRS >6 vs ≤6), and alcohol consumption (no/occasional or heavy vs light-moderate) with reductions in light PA.

For endurance ( Figure 2A ), the pooled analysis of the two studies indicated a marginally significant improvement in the C. sinensis supplementation group compared with the placebo group ( p = 0.05), with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 20%).

A higher occurrence of MSEs was observed in the comparator group, which was marginally significant (p=0·05).

The marginally significant interaction effect between education and severity, β = 0.57, t (1171) = 1.95, p = 0.05, was also tested.

There was a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.05) at baseline between the daily use and non-use group in the success ratio variable.