“marginally significant”

The model was marginally significant ( R 2 Nagelkerke = 0.32, p = 0.05).

This was demonstrated to be marginally significant ( P <0.05), but compares poorly to the 70% inhibition of α -MSH on HBL cells, and 35% inhibition on A375-SM cells.

Finally, on the subject of access to mental healthcare, with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.05), mental health caregivers (82.5 %) considered this to be a priority need more often than primary caregivers did (64.8 %).

Age shows a marginally significant trend, with younger professionals slightly more likely to have adequate knowledge (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95–1.00; p = 0.050).

The interaction effect between task and stimulus was marginally significant ( F (1,14) = 4.53, P = 0.05).

Briefly, patients with and without VH did not differ for any demographic, clinical or neuropsychological characteristics, except for the NPI total score ( p = 0.01) and the presence of rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

The mediation results for the positive association between trans fatty acid intake and visuo-spatial learning errors were as follows: the direct effect of trans fats on visuo-spatial learning errors was marginally significant ( B = 0.900, p = 0.05), whereas there was no direct effect of energy intake ( B = 0.0004), and there was no evidence for mediation of the trans fat effect by energy intake (bootstrapping 95% CI = -0.019 to 0.787).

Notably, the causal effects of FEV1 on SA of pericalcarine gyrus turns to marginally significant in results without global weighted (βnon-gc = -13.315, 95%CI: -26.654 ~ 0.024, P = 0.050).

Crucially, the interaction between cue validity and direction congruency was marginally significant ( F (1, 19) = 4.37, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.19), suggesting potential interference of peripheral BM on arrow-induced attention.

The difference between groups for the FEV1/FVC ratio was marginally significant (p = 0.05).

Further analysis, run on thought experience questions only, showed a marginally significant stimulation × FoP interaction (F(1,14) = 4.32, p = 0.05; η 2 = 0.19), suggesting that the sensorimotor stimulation conditions differently affected subjects responses, as a function of whether they did or did not perceive the FoP.

A marginally significant interaction of Beneficiary × Opportunity [ F (2, 66) = 3.269, P = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.090] was observed.

The exception was the marginally significant differences ( p = 0.05) in levels of flavonoids between the two years.

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%.

There was a marginally significant interaction between TMAO and BCAA ( p = 0.05), which is graphically depicted in Figure 2 .

Weekly Drinking The ANCOVA examining post-intervention weekly drinking revealed a marginally significant main effect of condition after controlling for baseline weekly drinking, F (2, 69) = 2.98, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.08.

A significant or marginally significant interaction between task and background color was found for NA score [ F (1,38) = 4.25, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.10] and TDR [ F (1,36) = 3.03, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.08], indicating that the effect of background color depends on the task.

It revealed a main effect of Hemisphere [ F 1 , 41 = 9.24, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.20], no effect of Condition [ F 2 , 82 = 0.82, p = 0.445, η 2 = 0.02] and a marginally significant interaction between these two factors [ F 2 , 82 = 3.08, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.07].

Differences between the materials were statistically marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

Courses taught by the PDs ranged in size from ten to 205 students (mean = 48), yet there was only a marginally significant negative correlation between class size and mean Bloom’s score on assessments (Pearson’s correlation, r = 0.26, p = 0.05).

5 ) but not in controls (2% reduction per cm 3 , p = .79) and the group interaction was marginally significant (mean difference 19% reduction per cm 3 , p = .050).

The three-way interaction between UnA, UnD, and fairness on trust was marginally significant, β = 0.06, SE = 0.03, t (225) = 1.97, p = 0.050, [95% CI: 0.00 to 0.12].

A marginally significant negative correlation was also observed between HIL and pterygium thickness ( r = −0.178, P = 0.050) in this cohort (Table 5 ).

second half) ANOVA showed only a marginally significant main effect of Part [ F (1, 76) = 4.07, p = 0.05] but a significant Part × Piece interaction [ F (2, 76) = 3.53, p = 0.03].

Differences between treated and non-treated control samples were considered not significant ( P ≥ 0.05), marginally significant ( P < 0.05) ∗ , or significant ( P < 0.01) ∗∗ .