“marginally significant”

A main effect of form of script was marginally significant (F (1,46) = 4.02, p≤.05, η p 2 = .08), and the estimated marginal means suggested that the pointed script (mean = 346.40, SE = 2.95) elicited delayed amplitudes in comparison to the unpointed script (mean = 342.56, SE = 2.88).

However, the main effect of gender on psychological resilience was marginally significant ( p < 0.05), which does not support a mediation effect model with gender as the primary moderating factor.

Statistics In all plots, only significant or at least marginally significant P values (significant level determined at p < 0.05) are specified.

In the CD8 + population, only when inactivated FeHV-1 was presented to monocytes, marginally significant proliferation compared to mock infection ( P < 0.05) was observed.

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

The association between TB and rs721917 genotypes was marginally significant ( P = 0.050), and this significance was reduced after adjusting for age and gender (Table 2 ).

Regarding physical performance, lower-limb strength and the sit-and-reach test score increased significantly in the intervention group, whereas a significant decrease in grip strength and a marginally significant decrease in 6-minute walking distance ( P = 0.05) were observed in the control group; each of these changes was significantly different from the corresponding change in the other group.

The mean K occ;30–60 values in the DD group were significantly greater in the caudate (ES = 0.83, corrected p = 0.048), but marginally significant in the putamen (ES—Cohen’s d coefficient = 1.07, corrected p = 0.05) relative to the control group.

Compared with CON, MBE demonstrated a marginally significant effect on improving CE (SMD = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.95], P = 0.05), though with considerable heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 79%); HIIT demonstrated markedly superior improvements (SMD = 3.06, 95% CI [2.06, 4.05], P < 0.00001); CT also demonstrated significant efficacy (SMD = 2.17, 95% CI [0.98

Having previous policy experience was not significantly related to whether participants selected ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’ (GLM: χ 2 1 = 0.0084, P > 0.05), but gender did have a marginally significant association with men more likely to select ‘Yes’ (GLM: χ 2 1 = 3.94, P < 0.05; n = 260 individual respondents).

Temperature had minimal impact on gut microbial functions at the gene level (KO) but became marginally significant at the pathway level (KEGG class level 3 and 2) (0.01 < p < 0.05, Figure 5c ).

Interestingly, although there was no overall effect of targeted region on perspective-taking [ F (13.12) = 2.46, P = 0.14, d = 0.38], there was a marginally significant interaction of targeted region with condition [ F (168.63) = 4.01, P = 0.05, Figure 4 ].

There was no significant relationship between δ 15 N and C:N ratios ( P = 0.21) and a marginally significant relationship with standard length ( P = 0.05 with a low adjusted R 2 of 0.02).

Similar to the trends in the any-error data, sensible non-target errors were more common among listeners with CIs than those with TH ( z = 2.3, p = 0.02), and these errors were mitigated by seeing the talker’s mouth for listeners with CIs but not those with TH (marginally significant interaction between mouth visibility and hearing group; z = 2.0, p = 0.05).

A follow-up ANOVA excluding the 0 cm condition showed a marginally significant effect of group [ F (1, 15) = 4.54, p = 0.05], but again no group × increment interaction.

The interaction of both factors was marginally significant, [ F (1.6, 71.96) = 3.37, p = 0.05, η 2 p = 0.07], revealing a larger difference in miss and misidentification rates during forest trials compared to interior and library/books trials.

eCPMV Immunotherapy Induces Changes in Cytokine Plasma Levels Of the 13 cytokines analyzed, a significant decrease in interleukin (IL)-6, IL-7, and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) levels were observed after the first eCPMV injection ( p < 0.04 for all), followed by an increase close to basal plasma levels by surgery day; a nonsignificant decline in IL-2 plasma levels was observed, and a marginally significant decrease in IL-10 by DSx ( p = 0.050) ( Table S9 ) was also observed.

There was a marginally significant genotype-by-diagnosis interaction (F 2,110 = 3.08, p = 0.050), which appeared to be driven by CUD patients with homozygous CC, who had shorter latencies on unsuccessful Stop trials compared with healthy control participans of the same genotype (F 1,103 = 3.703, p = 0.057).

There was a marginally significant difference in T2 PTSD symptoms ( t [164] = 1.97, p = 0.05), with those participating at both times reporting lower symptom levels ( M = 32.64, SD = 16.93) compared to those who only participated at T2 ( M = 39.16, SD = 19.48).

NBS analysis showed a marginally significant cluster ( p = .050) consisting of 13 ROIs and 14 edges with negative correlation between FC change (baseline minus posttreatment) and ΔHRSD.

The regression model contained 4 item factors (CC-Acc1, P <.001; CD-Acc3, P <.001; DR-Acc1, P =.03; and DR-RT1, P =.02) as the significant predictor at P <.05; 5 item factors were marginally significant predictors at P =.05-.07 ( Table 3 ).

For working memory (RA, %), there was only a marginally significant main effect of Time [ F (1,131) = 3.98, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.03; higher RA at T2 than T1], which became non-significant after co-varying for age [ F (1,130) = 3.09, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.02] ( Table 4 ).

Regarding the self-report measures, we observed a marginally significant interaction Condition x Group, F(2) = 3.053, p = .05, partial ƞ 2 = .041, suggesting that, in both groups, the self-reported arousal was always higher in the fear condition compared with the neutral condition, as well as in the happy condition compared with the neutral condition, p < .01.

The Pearson’s Chi-square test suggested a marginally significant difference between the number of isolates in the current and previous flowering season’s infructescences ( X 2 = 3.68, df = 1, p = 0.05), but this was not supported by the Mann-Whitney U test (U = 81.5, p = 0.09).

For the 500-Hz rustle, we found a significant main effect of hearing loss [F(1, 16.2) = 8.3, p = .01], a marginally significant main effect of age [F(1, 16.1) = 4.4, p = .05], and a significant interaction [F(1, 16.1) = 5.7, p = .03].