“marginally significant”

There was also a marginally significant association between PDC intervention and increased average height-for-age z-scores (β = 0.22, 95% CI −0.001 to 0.44; 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).

The interaction between cognitive task and AGE was marginally significant ( F (1, 26) = 4.19, p = 0.051).

In addition, storms also had a negative and marginally significant effect in the small islet of Binicodrell Petit (t = -2.541, P = 0.051).

This analysis revealed essentially the same pattern of effects as the RT ANOVA: a significant validity effect, F (2, 23) = 34.130, p < .001, η p 2 = .597, and a marginally significant interaction, F (2, 46) = 3.172, p = .051, η p 2 = .121.

Lifestyle factors also influenced underweight risk—not going to the gym was marginally significant (aOR: 1.21, p = 0.051).

In ANOVA model II, the leisure activity participation rate showed a marginally significant sex × condition interaction ( F 1,71 = 3.95, P = 0.051).

For those with MHAO, the association of IHTG content with risk of pre-diabetes plus diabetes was marginally significant, and the adjusted OR (95% CI) of per SD increase of IHTG content was 1.55 (1.00 to 2.40, p=0.051).

In the LRRC32 MO-injected fish, there was a marginally significant increase in TTA (30% increase, P = .051), whereas TSA was reduced by 29% compared with controls ( P = .034).

Time-Lagged Effects The cross-lagged parameters indicated that age 15 bullying victimization was significantly and positively associated with age 17 suicidal ideation in all tested models ( βs = 0.09–0.10, ps < 0.050), with the exception of models including both anxiety symptoms and alcohol use that showed a marginally significant effect (anxiety symptoms and beer/alcopops model: β = 0.08, p = 0.051; anxiety symptoms and spirits model: β = 0.08, p = 0.055).

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].

= 1.01, 3.56), each individual genetic polymorphism did not have significant predictive power by itself, with the exception of one marginally significant gene ( CD2AP , OR = 1.69, P < .051).

The path analysis revealed that there were significant direct effects of the intrusive rumination soon after the earthquake on PTSD and PTG, and the relation between PTSD and PTG was marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

In both display conditions and at all object motion speeds, the flow parsing gain was significantly smaller than 100%, t (7) < −7.75, p < .0001, indicating that flow parsing did not completely remove the self-motion component from the probe’s retinal motion. A 2 (display condition) × 4 (object motion speed) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that while the main effect of display condition was significant, F (1, 7) = 59.1, p = .0001, the main effect of object motion speed was not, F (3, 21) = 0.99, p = .42, and their interaction effect was marginally significant, F (3, 21) = 3.04, p = .051.

Higher scores on the openness scale were associated with subsequent fidelity-consistent modifications at a marginally significant level ( p = 0.051), suggesting that clinicians who endorsed greater openness to trying new interventions may be more likely to make modifications that preserved core elements of CBT.

The vigorous PA MET was marginally significant: F (1,39) = 4.06 and p = 0.051.

We also observed an interaction effect between “comorbid anxiety disorder” and “sex” on 20:4 LPA [F(1,82) = 4.75; p = 0.032], and this was also marginally significant for total LPA [F(1,88) = 3.92; p = 0.051].

At the same time, a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.051) indicated that the “Balanced” group exhibited the most interest in environmental friendliness.

The results indicate a positive, though marginally significant, coefficient for roommate commensality ( β = 0.043, p = 0.051), while the second-category commensality is not significant.

There was also a marginally significant trend of greater seroconversion rates among healthy controls than patients with ESKD (100% vs. 88%; P = 0.051).

When relative ornament size was used instead, body size remained in the final statistical model and was marginally significant ( p = 0.051; β = 0.03).

This association remains marginally significant when adjusting for age, energy intake, BMI, job status, thyroid, and smoking status (OR = 1.08; 95% CI 1.00, 1.16; P = 0.051).

This effect was also marginally significant in the OCD group compared to controls: increased probabilistic switching ( t (23) = − 2.054, p = 0.051).

In addition, this analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between Response Type and Task, F (1, 41) = 4.024, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.089.

Self‐rated health was marginally significant ( b = 0.331, SE = 0.169, p = 0.051), but also demonstrated a protective effect against the negative effects of loneliness on PWB.