“marginally significant”

The SD of head tilt angle showed a marginally significant difference across conditions ( F (1.364, 19.093) = 3.903, p =.052, η p 2 = 0.536).

The analysis of self-efficacy scores based on demographic variables indicated a marginally significant difference between female and male participants (39.5 ± 11.7 vs. 41.8 ± 12.3, p = 0.052).

The top–down attention effect is marginally significant at the palm location only for the right-handers without significant hand proximity attention [ F (1,7) = 2.34, P = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 1.53].

Mediation analysis revealed that uric acid (mediation effect = −0.003, p<0.001) and GGT (mediation effect = −0.004, p = 0.004) had significant mediation effects, while the mediating effect of serum albumin was marginally significant (p = 0.052) ( Figure 3B ).

The Observed species index included 8 studies (k = 8, N = 2302) and exhibited a marginally significant increase associated with exercise (g = 0.19, 95% CI: −0.002–0.39, P = 0.052), with low between-study heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%).

In contrast, those with poor support but with good chair stand performance presented with a considerably lower odds of a depressive burden compared with the reference group (albeit marginally significant, OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.25–1.01; p = .052).

However, the NOR task revealed marginally significant short-term memory deficits in the T1D STZ group ( p = 0.052), whereas non-T1D rats retained intact short-term memory ( p = 0.049).

For resistant colonies, colony area had a marginally significant positive correlation with relative fecundity (r 2 = 0.18, p = 0.052).

inverted) and channel cluster location (left, central, and occipital) as within subjects factors demonstrated a main effect of orientation, F (1, 15) = 5.781, p = 0.030, η p 2 = 0.278, a main effect of location, F (2, 30) = 9.047, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.376, and a marginally significant interaction between orientation and location, F (2, 30) = 3.273, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.179.

Only the inter-subject oxy-Hb variance in Z Init of ch.6 demonstrated a marginally significant correlation with WM modality dominance (ch.6: r = −0.40, p = 0.052; other channels: −0.32 < r < 0.19, p ’s > 0.13).

For MHC-linked loci, D20Img2 alone had a higher F ST than expected under neutrality in some population pairs, in both Fdist2 (AIT/TSO: p = 0.003; marginally significant probability for FIR/MAE: p = 0.052) and DetSel (AIT/TSO: p = 0.018; AAM/ALA: p = 0.02) ( Table 3 and figures S1 and S3 ).

Finally, the coefficient of lastborns is positive and marginally significant (β = 0.15; p = 0.052) suggesting lastborns were not disadvantaged compared to only children in mother–child closeness.

Block 2 regression results showed that the contribution of perceived personality difference over and above that of perceived age difference was marginally significant (Δ R 2 = .030, Δ F (1,117) = 3.84, p = .052).

The pistil tends to be longer than the stamen (about 0.3 mm longer), and this difference is marginally significant ( t = −2.07, P = 0.052; Table 1 ).

Zygomaticus EMG The ANOVA yielded a marginally significant difference between groups in zygomaticus EMG reactivity during happiness, F (2, 60) = 3.11, p = 0.052, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ \eta_{\text{p}}^2 = 0.0{9} $$\end{document} .

Subsequent ANCOVAs performed on individual gait variables showed that the main effect was significant for mean stride length ( F (1,128) = 4.32, p = 0.040, η p 2 = 0.03) and marginally significant for mean speed ( p = 0.052), with a significant interaction with physical activity for both variables (mean stride length F (1,128) = 9.95, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.07; mean speed F (1,128) = 6.94, p = 0.009, η p 2 = 0.05).

However, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between anthropomorphic cues and situational loneliness (F(1, 236) = 3.82, p = 0.052) showing that the effect of anthropomorphic cues on perceived product personalization is likely to be more pronounced when consumers experienced high (vs. low) situational loneliness.

An ANOVA on the score difference of overconfidence revealed a marginally significant effect for spatial height ( F (1, 93) = 3.89, p = .052, η p 2 = .040) but showed non-significant effects for either scale direction ( F (1, 93) = .37, p = .545, η p 2 = .004) or the interaction between scale direction and spatial height condition ( F (1, 93) = .001, p = .974, η p 2 < .001).

Using the alarm pheromone test, the time of recruitment of honey bees was marginally significant among bred lines (F 4,235 = 2.386, p = 0.052) ( Table 2 ).

Further simple effect tests revealed significant differences in the grouping factors in Class 1 ( t (55) = 2.32, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.67), Class 3 ( t (55) = 2.55, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.85), Class 4 ( t (55) = 3.10, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and CS + ( t (55) = 2.72, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.26), marginally significant differences in Class 2 ( t (55) = 1.99, p = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 0.61), and no significant differences in CS- ( t (55) = 1.53, p > 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.52).

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).

In univariate analysis, all family members sleeping regularly under bed net was marginally significant (P = 0.052).

Analysis of baseline and post-training emotional-based coping scores revealed a marginally significant group main effect [ANCOVA F (1, 62) = 3.92, P = 0.052], but post-hoc analyses failed to identify any within-group differences ( Figure 4B ).

There are marginally significant differences in the median density of marks between the recipient and the handle segments, for the back (Mann−Whitney U = 14, exact p = 0.052) but not for the front side (Mann−Whitney U = 26, exact p = 0.361), with the recipient having the higher average density of marks on both sides of the spoon. 2) The scatterplot of mark densities of merged and unmerged quadrants (the second method of building observation units) (Plot B in Fig 12 ) suggests that there is no correlation between the front and the back mark density (r = -0.02, p = 0.454, N = 35).

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.