“marginally significant”

Sensitivity was highest in the tactile combined-level method (99.99%), but was not significantly different from the visual combined-level method (89.17%), as shown in Figure 3A . In Figure 3B , the level effect for specificity was marginally significant ( F = 6.840, P = .051), but the modality effect was not statistically significant ( F = 1.314, P = .351).

The effect for inhibition ability was marginally significant, F (1, 34) = 4.11, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.108, with the high‐inhibition group showing better memory performance.

An ANOVA with repeated measures showed a marginally significant group × quadrant interaction overall, F(3, 30)=2.91, p =0.051.

Within the dorsal striatum, predictions based on the pattern of activity in the caudate nucleus ( r = 0.77, p = 1.3·10−7) were more accurate than those based on activity in the putamen ( r = 0.47, p = 0.0046; Figure 4 ), with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.051).

We also found a marginally significant effect on dogs' choices by the −213AG polymorphism [ χ ( 2 ) 2 = 5.948; p = 0.051].

There were significant main effects of image category, F (1, 36) = 9.62, p < 0.004, and a marginally significant effect of hemifield, F (1, 36) = 4.08, p = 0.051.

87.6%, p=0.015) and marginally significant difference at 24-month (82.7% vs. 67.6%, p=0.051).

Notably, there were marginally significant indirect effects of Volitional SE (β = .13, p = .051) and planning (β = .08, p = .053) on social distancing mediated by action control.

We found no evidence that average maternal LG was correlated with novelty scores for competition wins ( r = −0.184, p = 0.694, n = 7), and we found a marginally significant but negative correlation between the average amount of maternal LG and the novelty scores for CORT habituation ( r = −0.559, p = 0.051, n = 11; Fig. 3B ).

The 500–700 ms time window—The mixed-effects modelling’s fitting results showed that the main effect of the condition was marginally significant ( χ 2 (2) = 3.80, p = 0.051), and post hoc comparison suggested that the average amplitude caused by aspect violation sentences and by correct sentences was marginally significant ( β = −1.27, SE = 0.66, z = −1.94, p = 0.053).

RDS at 24 hours and RDS-related mortality were significantly reduced in the lucinactant group, and there was a marginally significant reduction in overall mortality (p = 0.051) in the lucinactant group as well. 34 The only head-to-head comparison of beractant with lucinactant for the prevention of RDS suggests that lucinactant has a slight advantage in clinically important short term outcomes over beractant, including the clinical diagnosis of RDS at 24 hours and RDS-related mortality.

There was a significant effect of the speed on the ESM, QL, PM, and PLL ( p < 0.001, p = 0.025, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively), and there is a marginally significant effect of the speed on the ALL ( p = 0.051).

Every additional person increasing the household size marginally significant increased the odds of having a drinking experience by 16% (OR = 1.16, p = . 051).

Results : The analysis of smooth pursuit gain in the participants revealed a marginally significant reduction between the SMA patients and the healthy controls in the horizontal direction at a frequency of 0.2 Hz ( p = 0.051), but no significant differences were observed at any other frequency or direction.

Households with two or more siblings and pets displayed marginally significant increased abundances of Penicillium (W = 38, p = 0.051, r = −0.008, CI 95% −0.014 to 0.0007) and Aureobasidium (W = 42, p = 0.087, r = −0.006, CI 95% −0.028 to 0.001), while those with no siblings and no pets exhibited lower overall fungal diversity.

Specific phobia showed a marginally significant effect for Time ( F (1, 22.67) = 4.24, p = 0.051), with a significant Time by Group interaction ( F (1, 22.67) = 5.77, p = 0.025).

However, it must be noted that one of the two measures of musical aptitude—the rhythm but not tone score—was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

There were 1,203 participants with diabetes followed up regarding their treatment behavior. Higher POS were likely to seek appropriate diabetes treatment after adjustment with personal and occupational factors ( p =0.032) but became marginally significant when adjusted with night shift status ( p =0.051).

Concerning non-responses , the main effect of Time-point was significant, F (1,18) = 22.55; p = 0.0001; μ 2 = 0.556, whereas the Group x Time-point interaction was marginally significant, F (1,18) = 4.38; p = 0.051; μ 2 = 0.195.

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).

In the first time-window compatible with the P1 time range and scalp distribution (112–152 ms), the Control group presented a marginally significant positive cluster of electrodes ( p = 0.051; cluster size = 203; cluster statistic = 604), showing a trend toward a larger amplitude in response to faces as compared to animals.

When symptoms were further classified as alarm symptoms according to the presence of one or more specific symptoms—bleeding or anemia, weight loss, dysphagia, persistent vomiting, and rapidly progressive symptoms—there was a marginally significant difference between the two groups, with a tendency for more alarm symptoms in the case group (28.7% vs. 19.3%; P = 0.051).

Moreover, the three-way interaction of protection × nutrition × site also showed a marginally significant effect on barley yield ( p =0.051).

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].

When comparing the CA and PD groups, we found a marginally significant difference, such that the PD group has a higher score (t = 1.97, p = 0.051, effect size = 0.34).