“marginally significant”

The interaction between CAD subtype and the RAR for MACEs was marginally significant ( p = 0.051; Fig. 7 ).

A primary effect for groups was marginally significant ( F = 3.90, p = 0.051).

Although the overall effect of transfusion timing was marginally significant (p=0.051), its nonlinear component reached statistical significance (p=0.033), indicating a potential critical risk window.

Additionally, they noted a marginally significant correlation between the number of EUS-RFA sessions and PFS ( p = 0.051).

Conscientiousness showed a marginally significant negative correlation with NA ( r = −0.231, p = 0.051), while extraversion and agreeableness were not significantly related to overall NA ( p > 0.05).

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

Infants in the redundant condition showed marginally significant visual recovery when ADS changed to IDS in native speech ( t (19) 2.085, p = 0.051).

However, for NP2-biased verbs, the difference between congruent and incongruent conditions was not significant for the high-proficiency group ( β = −0.014, SE = 0.037, t = −0.371, p = 0.711) but was marginally significant for the low-proficiency group ( β = −0.076, SE = 0.039, t = −1.951, p = 0.051).

Repeated measures ANOVA for S++, S+++ latency differences, were marginally significant for Chrominance [F(1,8) = 5.245, p = 0.051 Greenhouse-Geisser corrected] and significant for the Luminance condition [F(1,8) = 6.898, p = 0.030 Greenhouse-Geisser corrected] ( Fig. 5, G and H ). 3.

In contrast to 30 mg QD dacomitinib and 80 mg QD osimertinib, we observed a marginally significant improvement after 1 year of treatment ( P = 0.051) after multiple comparison corrections.

The probe location by group interaction was marginally significant for both untrained pictures, F (1, 139) = 3.86, p = .051, η p 2 = .03, and trained pictures, F (1, 139) = 3.70, p = .056, η p 2 = .03, pointing to a generalization from trained to untrained pictures.

May showed a marginally significant decrease in species count (Estimate = − 0.6145, p = 0.051).

However, there was a marginally significant positive correlation between the effects of reward in the EDT and the RET (R s = 0.331, p = 0.051, two-tailed).

With respect to gender differences, only a marginally significant effect was observed for Emotional clarity ( t (171) = 1.97, p = 0.051, d = 0.30).

The difference between major and minor music conditions was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

After correction using the Bengtsson formula, the corrected retinal arteriolar diameter (CVD a ) remained significantly correlated with AL ( P < 0.05, R 2 = 0.07), whereas the corrected retinal venular diameter (CVD v ) showed a marginally significant correlation ( P = 0.051).

We found a marginally significant main effect of gossip, F (1, 15.454) = 4.460, p = 0.051, with more contribution in each round when participants could gossip ( M = 7.444, SE = 0.357), compared to unable to gossip ( M = 6.378, SE = 0.357).

The effect of Condition was marginally significant in the R4 repetition lag, F (2, 26) = 3.35, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.205, and was not significant in the R2 repetition lag, F (2, 26) = 0.70, p = 0.505, η p 2 = 0.051.

Differences in active coping also reached statistical significance between groups ( F = 2.37; p = 0.038), highlighting a marginally significant difference between women aged 18–24 ( M = 20.63; SD = 3.53) and those aged 30–34 years ( M = 21.65; SD = 3.15) ( p = 0.051).

CRBSI was more frequently observed in women than men, and this difference was marginally significant (cumulative incidence at 30 days: 7.9% vs. 0%; p=0.051) ( Table 2 ).

There was a marginally significant difference in aggressive behavior (i.e., noise intensity) between the two game groups [ F (1, 47) = 4.02, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.08], such that the prosocial game group assigned lower-intensity sounds to their rivals compared to the neutral game group(see Figure 2D ).

This effect was marginally significant for ‘high’ ratings: seven out of 12 females (58%) reported ‘feeling high’ versus seven out of 20 males (35%); χ 2 = 3.791, p = 0.051 (not shown).

2.0%), which was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

There was a marginally significant positive correlation between alexithymia scores and CE for anger [ r (28) = 0.366, p = 0.051] in the ASD group.