“marginally significant”

Comparing participants who did not adopt state 4 at all with those who did enter state 4, using between group t -tests, revealed marginally significant higher distraction by temptation for participants who adopted state 4, t (91) = 1.98, P = 0.051.

A linear regression of E-score per year compared with approval distance yielded a marginally significant result ( p = 0.051) with an R 2 value of 0.091.

Similar to base model 2, adding adiponectin to base model 3 did not improve AUC, but resulted in small yet marginally significant NRI (0.12, P = 0.051) and IDI (0.01, P < 0.05).

40‐64) revealed a marginally significant negative association ( B = ‐0.320, p = 0.051), suggesting that participants aged 40‐64 were slightly less likely to anticipate AD.

Regarding “pregnancy”, subjects whose pregnancies were induced by medical assistance showed a marginally significant higher anxiety score at time t1 using Fisher’s test ( p = 0.051 Cramérs V = 0.295).

Results of a general linear mixed effects analysis with the dependent variable ‘Accuracy’ and the predictor variable ‘Condition’ showed a marginally significant effect of the predictor Condition [ X 2 (7) = 14.022, p = 0.051].

The effect of condition was marginally significant, F (2, 18) = 3.523, P = 0.051.

Results Two participants who incorrectly responded to the target article comprehension questions were removed from analyses (the significance and direction of results do not differ if these individuals are included, with one exception: the experimental condition x timepoint interaction for the general perceived anti-White discrimination analysis was marginally significant, F (2, 224) = 3.02, p = .051, η p 2 = 0.03).

Finally, Positive affect was marginally significant (t = 1.90, p = 0.051) with a negligible effect size (d = 0.18) while Negative affect was not significantly different across the two conditions (t = 1.70, p = 0.08).

A marginally significant contrast was also found for the PP → PAUTO path (Δβ = 0.104, p = 0.051), with slightly larger autonomy from tailored content for men.

In this sample, the salvinorin-induced increases in STAI mean values were marginally significant ( P =.051).

Silver fir profited from high maximum temperatures, as the effect was marginally significant with a 1°C increase in positive maximum temperatures reducing the hazard of death by 36.4% ( p = 0.051).

ANOVA of the number of anticipatory responses indicated significant main effects for block (F(1, 245) = 35.84, MSE = 1.11, p < .001, η 2 p = .128) and exposure (F(1.85, 453.86) = 39.21, MSE = 2.84 (Greenhouse–Geisser correction for deviation from sphericity), p < .001, η 2 p = .138) as well as a marginally significant main effect of UHR status (F(1, 245) = 3.84, MSE = 5.70, p = .051, η 2 p = .015).

Per protocol (PP) analysis Results from 3 × 4 mixed ANOVA revealed significant treatment-by-time interaction effects for all variables analysed, with the exception of behaviour activation, which nevertheless reached a marginally significant level ( p = 0.051) ( Table 8 ).

Age was shown to have a marginally significant influence on the tibial meniscal SH at the medial (p = 0.051) and lateral (p = 0.09) region B and medial region C (p = 0.054).

Only the MFA values of the lIFOF in the second time point had a marginally significant difference (F>M), t (36) = 2.02, P = 0.051. l IFOF Here, a significant main effect of time was revealed, F (1, 35) = 49.94, P < 0.01 with a large effect size η 2 = 0.588.

There was a marginally significant interaction between time and HIRI on Lac 3 (F = 4.338, p = 0.051, Supplementary Table S4 ), with mean comparisons indicating a decrease in Lac 3 enrichment in the HIRI group compared to the control at ZT0, but a significant increase at ZT12 post-HIRI ( Supplementary Figure S1A ).

In an analogous way, those who had low alcohol consumption were 59% (p<0.01) more likely to report bad/very bad health, whereas for those with high alcohol consumption, reporting bad/very bad health was marginally significant (OR=2.05; p=0.051).

Smoking had a marginally significant modification effect on the participants aged 66–69 years with high vitamin C intake ( P = 0.051).

1a ; P = 0.021), while the gene-level genetic burden was marginally significant in the same category (P = 0.051).

Within a constrained range (scaled V 3 < 0.8), time pressure exhibited a marginally significant interaction with contextual variance ( β = 0.46, s.e. = 0.23, t = 1.95, p = 0.051, standardized coefficient = 0.08, 95% C.I. = [0, .15]) — a pattern consistent with the model prediction of a flatter early noise effect under high time pressure due to early-late noise tradeoff.

When checked for differences between the two land-use types for major soil variables, a significant difference in TOC (glmm PQL; t = −2.8, p < 0.05) and a marginally significant difference in TN (glmm PQL; t = −2.0, p = 0.051), was present.

In addition, alpha power showed a marginally significant negative correlation with PSQI ( r = −0.189, p = 0.051).

Model 1a (HR ~ time + group + autoregression) fit significantly better than Model 0a (χ 2 (2) = 9.28, p = 0.010), while the difference in the goodness of fit between Model 1a and Model 2a (HR ~ time * group + autoregression) was marginally significant (χ 2 (1) = 3.81, p = 0.051).

DBP was not significantly associated with the risk of all‐cause death; rather, it was only associated with a marginally significant 1% increased risk for cardiovascular events ( p = 0.051).