“marginally significant”

Two-way ANOVA showed no main effect of locomotion (F (1,7) = 4.05, P = 0.084) but revealed a marginally significant locomotion × frequency interaction (F (1,7) = 5.59, P = 0.050).

In multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for age and BMI, Prevotella abundance remained a significant predictor ( p = 0.044), while IL-1β was marginally significant ( p = 0.050).

Removing those with a medical profession, prior diagnosis of mental disease, or spending more than 15 min (n = 848) made the interaction between treatment and its effectiveness marginally significant: F(1, 838) = 3.86, p = .05.

The results showed that the three-way interaction effect was no longer significant after inhibition was controlled as a covariate ( F (4, 104) = 2.17, p = 0.078, and η p 2 = 0.077), and was marginally significant after working memory was controlled ( F (4, 114) = 2.46, p = 0.05, and η p 2 = 0.079).

There was also a marginally significant group*time interaction for executive function ( p = 0.05).

Statistical significance was calculated using the two-sided Welch’s t -test for comparisons of two groups or the Tukey-Kramer test for multiple comparisons, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.1 (marginally significant), p ≤ 0.05, and p ≤ 0.01 (significant difference).

Higher plasma BDNF levels are associated with slower change in white matter volume with age ( Table 2 ) A significant BDNF by sex interaction was observed for the trajectories of frontal WM volume (F(1,360) = 7.52, p = 0.006; Table 1 ), where a strong but marginally significant trend was present for slower rates of frontal WM decline in association with higher BDNF levels in females (p = 0.05).

As to the Levine clock, the association for obese women was marginally significant: β = 1.29, 95% CI = −0.01 to 2.58, P = 0.05.

Regarding sex differences in serum biochemistry, males showed significantly higher levels of TGL and urea, while ALT showed a marginally significant difference ( p ≤ 0.05) (Table 4 ). 4.

The ANOVA measuring GROUP effects on fixation count during search was marginally significant ( F (3,81) = 2.71, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.09) and post hoc tests showed ASD− group to have higher number of fixations than ASD+ ( t (81) = 2.59, p = 0.05, d = 0.57) and TD groups ( t (81) = 2.50, p = 0.06, d = 0.55), but did not differ significantly from ADHD at post hoc tests.

Variables used in the multivariate model were those that had shown a marginally significant (p < 0.05) relation with the perinatal outcomes in univariate analysis.

In addition, we carried out the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to investigate the absolute stability of scores, and found that, despite the tests were statistically or marginally significant, the effect sizes suggested that these differences were negligible (BOA/SUB: Z(98) = −1.95, p = 0.05, r = −0.14; SUP: Z(98) = −2.12, p = 0.034, r = −0.15; BOA: Z(98) = −3.12, p = 0.002, r = −0.22). 4.

In multivariate analysis, the number of TREM2 + immune cells was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

T 3 - and vehicle-injected males also showed a marginally significant difference in their preferences ( W (32) = 61, p < 0.05, d = 0.98).

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.

However, pre- and post changes in muscle soreness were marginally significant for groups 2 and 3 ( P < 0.05).

Overall, the patterns replicated those observed for the Group effect: the Previous trial ×Partner’s choice ×Age interaction was significant in GLMM sup 1 ( b =0.02, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.036], p =0.038, see Appendix 1—table 5 ) and LMM sup 3 ( b =0.04, 95% CI = [0.031, 0.046], p<0.001, see Appendix 1—table 8 ), and marginally significant in LMM sup 1 ( b =0.0012, 95% CI = [ − 1.63 × 10 − 7 , 0.002], p=0.050, see Appendix 1—table 6 ).

Spikers with a very regular spiking frequency can also have marginally significant principal peaks, but normally with p > 0.05.

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).

On one hand, for intra-subject, statistical test on the performance of deep ConvNet over shallow ConvNet find the statistics Z = −1.923 which is marginally significant ( p = 0.05), where the negative Z shows the shallow ConvNet performs better than deep ConvNet.

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).

The results showed that the p values for the correlation with HF and death were significant (p<0.05); while the correlation with hard CHD was marginally significant (p=0.05).

ALBI grade was marginally significant ( P = 0.05, HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.99–2.04, Fig. 3C ).

Importantly, there was no significant interaction between congruency, block and experiment, p = 0.10, and only a marginally significant interaction between RT, block and experiment, χ2 (2) = 6.00, p = 0.050.

The effect of the 3-way interaction was marginally significant (B = −1.03, SE = 0.52, t (125) = −1.97, p = 0.05, f 2 = 3.1%; Figure 3 ).