“marginally significant”

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).

The manipulation of context (i.e., context relation or context saliency) did not affect reaction times, whereas a marginally significant main effect of context relation was found in error rates, F (1, 146) = 3.88, p = .05, η p 2 = .03, with a relatively higher error rate when the context was repeated ( M error rate = .12) than when it was changed ( M error rate = .11).

In the subsequent results and discussion, we use “marginally significant” when p < 0.05 and “significant” to describe results where p < 0.01.

Likewise, patients with KRAS exon 2 mutations in their primary tumors presented higher probability for relapse compared to patients with KRAS exon 2 wild type tumors, but the difference was marginally significant (HR, 1.757; 95% CI, 1.000 to 3.090; p=0.05).

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant between P > 0.05 and P ≤ 0.10.

19 , 20 , 22 – 24 , 28 , 29 , 32 The pooled results indicated a marginally significant reduction in CSM risk among BB users (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81–1.00; Z = 1.95; P = 0.05).

The APdE9 x Bdnf interaction remained marginally significant in females (p = 0.05), but did not reach significance in males (p = 0.08).

The results show a marginally significant distinction in ‘Practical and Accessibility Issues’ across nationalities ( H = 7.80, df = 3, p = .05), with Iraqis experiencing the greatest barriers.

Educational attainment was marginally significant, with higher years of schooling associated with lower odds of ever smoking (OR = 0.954, SE = 0.022, 95% CI: 0.910–1.000, p = 0.050).

We retained DERs that were at least marginally significant (p < 0.05) in this replication dataset, yielding 50,560 (80.1%) genome-wide significant DERs that were also differentially expressed in this independent DLPFC dataset, which were used for the analyses described below.

During stimulation, real compared to sham tDCS induced a marginally significant increase in win learning rates ( t (19) = 2.08, p = .050, dz = 0.387).

Compared to the TDCs, the mean R 2 value of the whole cortex in patients with ASD was significantly reduced ( p = 0.048, Figure 3 A), and decreases in R 2 values in SMN, CCN, and ventral attention network (VAN) were marginally significant ( p < 0.05, FDR correction failed).

We did observe a marginally significant interaction between Consistency and Seeing, F (2, 32) = 3.30, p = .05, η p 2 = .171.

The main effect ‘test order’ had a marginally significant influence on the latency to forage (df = 2, χ 2 = 5.992, p = 0.050), with sparrows foraging marginally sooner in the third round of tests (Table 2 ).

A few categories, such as Auxiliary (for Group 2), Familiar Objects and Verbs (for age), showed marginally significant p -values (e.g., p ≈ 0.05–0.06).

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.

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.

Marginally significant seasonal effect on fungal compositional pattern was also detected (R 2 = 0.06; p = 0.05), where the 95% confidence interval ellipses for autumn and winter were isolated, denoting distinct composition (Table 2 ; Fig. 3 a).

The distribution of years of education between groups is marginally significant, X 2 (1) = 3.84, p = 0.050.

In addition, attachment anxiety had a significant inverse association with need for achievement, F (2, 244) = 5.26, R 2 = 0.04, p = 0.006; β = −0.20, t = −3.22, p = 0.001), and a marginally significant inverse association with creative tendency, F (2, 244) = 2.92, R 2 = 0.02, p = 0.05; β = −0.11, t = −1.74, p = 0.08.

A marginally significant reduction in the MSE was found in segments related to apneas compared to hypopneas in the estimated motion signal (1.66 ± 1.46% vs 2.12 ± 0.87%, p = 0.05).

Although location was marginally significant for agglutination, post hoc test did not reveal any significant differences among locations (all t < 2.33, all P > 0.05).

In the hypertension‐only group (Figure 1(b) ), a marginally significant difference was observed between the first and third treatments ( p < 0.05), with no significant differences between the second treatment and the other two time points.

Finally, as can be seen in Table 2 , the mediation analyses highlighted marginally significant indirect effects from T1 and T2 domestic violence victimization to T3 and T4 bullying perpetration through T2 and T3 CDs, respectively (β = 0.01, p < 0.05, 95% C.I.s [0.002, 0.017] and [0.002, 0.018], respectively).

Furthermore, a marginally significant effect of appearance on likability was found ( F 3,129 =2.63, P =.05, η p 2 =0.061).