“marginally significant”

Serum leucine–isoleucine was also numerically higher in MetS, but the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

The difference in average sensitivity between CRT ( M = 1.45, SD = 1.14) and LCD ( M = 1.76, SD = 1.1) was again small, but we observed a marginally significant main effect of display type, F (1, 23) = 4.24, p = 0.051, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\eta }_{G}^{2}$$\end{document} η G 2 = 0.014, indicating better performance on LCD.

An ANCOVA revealed a marginally significant effect of group on AV benefit (F(3, 120) = 2.67, p = .051, partial η 2 = .06), and a significant effect of age (F(1, 120) = 5.51, p = .021, partial η 2 = .04).

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

When we divided the subjects into two groups by age (<75 and ≥75 years), the difference was more prominent in subjects aged <75 years (-0.59±0.36 in group 2 and -1.4±0.29 in group 3), which was marginally significant (p=0.051).

Younger participants (29 years and below) had a higher proportion of limited knowledge (30.9%) compared with older groups, though the difference by age was marginally significant (p = 0.051).

Comparison of plasma cortisol concentrations between months showed marginally significant differences (F (3,43) = 2.809; p = 0.051) between the first and last months of the hunting season ( Figure 1 a).

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.

There was a marginally significant difference in age between VS (41.8 ± 16.8) and MCS (52.9 ± 13.8) participants ( p = 0.051).

The PERMANOVA and PCA results, incorporating all floral traits, showed marginally significant differentiation between the insular and mainland populations of P. japonica (Bonferroni-corrected pairwise PERMANOVAs: F -value = 5.9, R 2 = 0.13, P = 0.051; Supplementary Table S7 ).

Some predictions were also marginally significant, as couples with more children living at home, OR = 3.17, 95% CI [1.00; 10.10], p = 0.051, tended to more often belong to Group 4 than Group 1.

A substantial improvement was found in all groups at 3 months, followed by a slight increase at 6 months, which is marginally significant in group A (adjusted p = 0.051) and significant in groups B and C (see Figure 7 ).

There was a marginally significant preference to learn socially when receiving the hard PP, 65%, compared with the easy SB, 35%, Fisher's exact test, p = 0.051.

The two conditions with potential ostensive cues (Nodding and Nodding with direct gaze) resulted in marginally significant gaze following and medium effect sizes ( t (21) = 1.715, p = .051, d = 0.75, t (21) = 1.699, p = .052, d = 0.74, respectively).

There was a marginally significant mean difference among tertiles of the CSI in terms of stress (P = 0.051), DASS-21 (P = 0.078) in the crude model.

The interaction between Round and Policy was marginally significant F (1, 94) = 3.91, p = 0.051, partial η 2 = 0.04 indicating that in general participants tended to inflate performance more in the one-by-one condition than in the all-at-once condition.

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).

Furthermore, a marginally significant association was also identified between the presence of the chrA gene and MAR index values exceeding 0.2 ( p = 0.051) in our study.

The two-way interaction of social distance X outcome was marginally significant [ F (2, 117) = 3.05, p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.05].

Our results show a marginally significant difference for prosopagnosics and Germans in featural sensitivity ( p = 0.051).

3 ); this difference was marginally significant (p=0.051).

19.1%, 95%CI: 14.8%–24.3%), with marginally significant heterogeneity between these two groups ( p = .051).

Paths from maternal emotion regulation difficulties at 1.5 years to child socio‐emotional problems were not statistically significant at 2 years postpartum ( β = .08, CI [−.001; .18], p = .102), yet marginally significant at 3 years postpartum ( β = .13, CI [.02; .24], p = .051).

The only IgG subclass that showed a marginally significant difference was IgG2 ( p = 0.051), with higher levels observed in the control group than in the LTBI group.

In the IDHmt group, the OS difference according to the EOR was marginally significant (p = 0.051).