“marginally significant”

IAcc The ANOVA for IAcc revealed a marginally significant and small to medium‐sized time by group interaction ( F [1, 89] = 3.93, p = .050, Wilk's λ = .958, η p 2 = .04) for the HTT (Figure 3 A) with no significant main effects for time ( F [1, 89] = 2.41, p = .124, Wilk's λ = .974, η p 2 = .03) and group ( F [1, 89] = 0.09, p = .771, η p 2 = .00), respectively.

Compared to CP patients, CI patients had smaller thalami based on all methods, excepted the left thalamus volumes obtained through manual outlining ( p = 0.18) and marginally significant for left thalamus volumes from GIF ( p = 0.05).

Analysis III based on a three level ordered outcome shows a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.05).

The association between city-level prevalence of the two viruses was analysed using the Spearman rank correlation and found to be marginally significant (r s =0.62, p=0.05).

However, there was a marginally significant relationship (positive) between plant visitation and the number of open flowers on individual plants ( r 2 = 0.16, F 1,22 = 4.21, P = 0.05).

Meta-analysis on PET studies There was a marginally significant subgroup difference between the PET studies that controlled for covariates and the ones that did not (4 vs. 7 study groups, Q(1) = 3.72, p = 0.05).

Differences between treatments were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at P > 0.05 and <0.10.

To resolve the cTBS × Effort level × Trial interaction, we computed separate MGLMs for each effort level: For high effort, but not for medium and low effort, we observed a marginally significant negative effect of trial, β = −1.70, t (71) = 1.95, p = .05, BF 10 = 3.50, suggesting that in the control group participants were less willing to choose the effortful option with increasing time‐on‐task.

Association between population growth and lifespan was generally absent (Table 1 and Figure S3 ), apart from a marginally significant positive correlation ( p ‐value = .05), obtained with E . coli IAI1 for population growth at 114 h.

In experiment 3 , one-way repeated-measures ANOVA yielded a marginally significant effect of finger ( F 2, 28 = 3.33, P = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.19).

Three-year OS was marginally significant in patients with stage I/II compared with patients with stage III (64.3% vs 19.4%; P =.05).

There was a main effect of motion type ( F1 (2,60) = 11.27, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 27.3, observed power = 0.99; F2 (2,32) = 9.75, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 37.9, observed power = 0.972), and a marginally significant effect of verb type in the participants analysis ( F1 (1,30) = 4.16, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 12.2, observed power = 0.506), and in the items analysis ( F2 (1, 16) = 4.14, p = 0.059, η p 2 = 20.5, observed power = 0.481).

Sample size was also a significant moderator ( Q M (1) = 3.63, R 2 = 17.69%, p = 0.05), indicating a marginally significant negative association between sample size and effect size—larger samples tended to report slightly smaller effects ( β = −0.0054, SE = 0.0028, p = 0.05).

However, gender stereotype endorsement (GSE; Model 2) was found to differentially predict the trait-state discrepancy based on gender as stated in Hypothesis 3: This discrepancy was positively predicted by GSE for girls (γ 120 = 0.21, p < 0.001), whereas for boys the effect of GSE was negative and marginally significant (γ 120 = −0.09, p = 0.05).

However, a marginally significant interaction between group and menopausal status was identified ( p = 0.05), indicating that postmenopausal women in the placebo group showed a marked increase in symptoms (58.04%), whereas those in the intervention group showed a reduction of 34.51%.

Notably, as shown in Table 2 , ACT combined with conventional rehabilitation showed a marginally significant greater improvement in depressive symptoms compared with ACT alone ( p = 0.05). 3.3.2 Anxiety Thirteen studies reported the effects of ACT on anxiety symptoms in stroke patients.

Given the exploratory nature of the work, marginally significant results ( p = 0.05 to p = 0.08) were also identified where these conferred with significant effects in a similar measure, to ensure no effects were missed. p -values are used to denote effects of interest considering the absence of any suggestion at present on the clinical significance of any measure of sweet taste liking or preference [ 31 ]. 3.

There were marginally significant differences ( p < 0.05) between CHIKV copy numbers in mosquitoes fed first with ZIKV and then with CHIKV compared to mosquitoes exposed to an uninfectious blood meal first (UC vs.

Secondary GWAS ( N = 255,426), excluding shiftworkers and individuals with chronic health or psychiatric illnesses, additionally identified significant variants in SEMA3D and revealed marginally significant interactions with health status at PATJ, ZENF326/BARHL2, ECE2, ASAP1 , and CYP1A1/CYP1A2 (interaction P < 0.05; Supplementary Fig. 6 , Supplementary Table 7 ).

The group difference in the quality of life questionnaire WHOQOL-BREF was marginally significant, p = 0.05.

Result Living in the 20% most disadvantaged neighborhood was associated with higher GFAP concentration, an effect that was marginally significant (b = ‐1.4898; 95% CI; ‐2.978 to ‐0.002; P = 0.050).

A 2 (test) × 3 (group) mixed-factors ANOVA revealed no main effect of group, F (2,71) = 0.16; p = 0.85; η 2 G < 0.01, no main effect of test, F (1,71) = 1.10; p = 0.30; η 2 G < 0.01, but a marginally significant group × test interaction, F (2,71) = 3.07; p = 0.05; η 2 G = 0.02.

Notably, among the other 12 pathways detected in the Wang dataset but not in the Desmedt dataset, 11 were marginally significant in the Desmedt dataset with P < 0.05.

Overall results suggested a marginally significant interaction between condition and language, χ 2 (3) = 5.84, p = .05, a significant main effect of language, χ 2 (1) = 79.18, p < .001, and a significant main effect of condition, χ 2 (1) = 68.77, p < .001.

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.