“marginally significant”

A repeated measures ANOVA, with condition (SP, SN, IP, IN, CC) as a within-subject factor, revealed a marginally significant main effect of condition ( F (4,104) = 2.43, p = 0.052).

When comparing the scores provided by the LIWC, the results of the test indicated that participants came up with marginally significant more negative words in the rumination ( Mdn = 9.31) than in the control condition ( Mdn = 5.26), U = 331.00, z = −1.94, p = .052, while the negativity scores from SentiWordNet were significantly higher in the rumination condition ( Mdn = 0.08) than in the control condition ( Mdn = .05), U = 303.50, z = −2.33, p = .020.

Offer level The expected interaction between exemplar behavior and exemplar emotion was marginally significant, p = .052.

The between-group difference reached clinically relevant, but marginally significant, reduction in body fat (−4.05 kg 95% CI: −8.14; 0.03, p = 0.052), segmental trunk fat (−1.69 kg 95% CI: −3.50; 0.12, p = 0.067), and WC (−4.36 cm 95% CI: −8.81; 0.082, p = 0.054), favoring the intervention group.

Beta diversity, assessed at the feature level, showed a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.052) and reached significance at the class level ( p = 0.035).

Step 3 introduced social anxiety (LSAS), which accounted for an additional but marginally significant proportion of variance, ∆ R 2 = 0.02, F (1,108) = 3.86, p = 0.052.

A marginally significant association was observed between high PLR and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.61, 95% CI1.00–2.59, P = 0.052).

4 ) (Repeated Measures ANOVA showed that the main effect of the two experiment was marginally significant ( F (1, 52) = 3.71, p = 0.052, η2 = 0.067)), suggesting that the response boundary could affect the speed estimation.

Pairwise comparisons without P -value adjustment showed significant differences between no-magnet control and head treatments ( t =2.642, P =0.012) and between head and posterior carapace treatments ( t =−2.161, P =0.036), as well as a marginally significant difference between head and mid-carapace treatments ( t =−2.004, P =0.052), all in keeping with the hypothesis that magnetoreceptors are in the head.

These analyses did not detect a significant density effect on invasive snails ( p = .336) but did reveal a marginally significant effect of density treatment on embryo production for native snails ( p = .052; Table 5 ).

pNGAL was marginally significant (p = 0.052) and uCyC was not significant (p = 0.76) after they were added to the parsimonious clinical model.

Poor sleep quality (PSQI score) directly impaired QoL ( β = -1.139, P = 0.003), while functional exercise compliance had a marginally significant positive direct effect ( β = 0.874, P = 0.052).

Cases with high miR-150-5p expression were also found to have more frequent intraperitoneal recurrence than those with non-high miR-150-5p expression, with the difference being marginally significant (20.5% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.052).

A marginally significant cluster was found in neutral trials in 188–216 ms ( T sum = 344.235, p = 0.052).

This analysis showed a trend towards a main effect of Diagnosis (F(1,29.02) = 3.02, p < 0.10), and a marginally significant main effect of Timepoint (F(1,28.9) = 4.01 initial = 95.3 ± 0.98, follow-up = 92.7 ± 1.00, p = 0.052).

3 ), but only showed a marginally significant difference between the apple and banana substrates (GLM: χ 2 1,495 = 3.78, P = 0.052), and no effect of the interaction between resource type and frequency (GLM: χ 2 1,495 = 3.65, P = 0.06; Fig. 3 ).

A planned contrast on mean BtBC revealed a marginally significant difference between “CS+ HS > CS‐ HS ” and “CS+ LS > CS‐ LS ” (independent t ‐test, t = 1.98, P = 0.052; Figure 6B , right panel).

ICF demonstrated a marginally significant interaction for MP-RT at Post 30 ( β = 0.13, SE = 0.07, t = 1.94, p = 0.052, η 2 G = 0.99).

The effect of treatment on pod number followed the same trend ( χ 2 2 = 6.46, P = 0.04), but the interaction with plant cohort was marginally significant ( χ 4 2 = 9.38, P = 0.052; Figure 3B ).

Participants in the top category of HEI score had marginally significant lower levels of hs-CRP and ALP in crude model (P = 0.052 and P = 0.076, respectively).

PVT The ANOVA of participants’ mean RTs revealed a marginally significant main effect of aerobic fitness, F (1, 42) = 3.663, p = .052, ηp 2 = .08.

When assessing group differences in power, there were marginally significant differences in low frequency power [ F (2, 49) = 3.14, p = 0.052] due to the controls exhibiting greater low frequency power compared to schizophrenia and autism, but this did not survive Bonferroni correction ( p = 0.110; p = 0.140, respectively).

More specifically, an increase in scores of individualism decreased the effect of anxiety on passive-submissive coping style: interaction was marginally significant, F (1,820) = 3.76, β = –0.10, t (848) = –1.94, p = 0.052.

Even more importantly, a marginally significant interaction between type of IMS stroking and percentage of self-other morphing (Identity) was observed (F 4,72 = 2.475, η 2 = 0.121, p = 0.052) (Fig. 2A ).

A marginally significant increase in the expression of CD31 protein ( p =0.052) was observed in the PF127+CS+miR-200b-3p group compared with that in the PF127+Lipo+miR-200b-3p group, suggesting that a pro-angiogenic effect of CS may exist in the healing wound.