“marginally significant”

0.01, respectively); marginally significant in the near-ceiling learner (S4: F (5, 15) = 2.80, p ≈ 0.055); and not significant in the other three (S5: F (5, 15) = 1.11 p ≈ 0.396; S6: F (1, 15) = 0.73, p ≈ 0.6137; S7: F (1, 15) = 2.21, p ≈ 0.108; respectively).

For native Chinese speakers, the main effect of clause type on accuracy was marginally significant [ F 1(1, 37) = 3.91, MSE = 0.001, p = 0.055, partial eta squared (η 2 ) = 0.10; F 2(1, 14) = 0.96, MSE = 0.002, p = 0.34, η 2 = 0.08].

In Stage II, the post-treatment differences remained marginally significant (HADS-A: p = 0.055; HADS-D: p = 0.050; EORTC QLQ-H&N35: p = 0.065).

Negative Facial Expression showed the same pattern as Vocalization, but its path from the occurrence rate at age 9 months to the autonomy score at age 18 months was marginally significant and the estimate of standardized regression weight was −.18 ( P = .055).

The effect of rice genotype on pmoA copy number was marginally significant ( p = 0.055).

Indeed, we did see that concurrent load increased partner-duplications at generation, consistent with its demonstrated effect on working memory ( Quinn and Ralston, 1986 ; Smyth and Pendleton, 1989 ; Lawrence et al., 2001 ; Can et al., 2017 ), and decreased correct recall of partner actions [this simple effect was marginally significant, F (2,34) = 3.17, MSe = 2.33, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.157].

On day 3, the percentage of cleavage stage embryos was higher in ICSI group however the difference was marginally significant ( P =0.055).

The difference in the Stroop facilitation effect between positive and negative groups was marginally significant ( F (1, 26) = 4.05, p = .055).

Notably, the left parietal inferior region showed a significant correlation during action observation ( r = 0.48, p = 0.041), and a marginally significant correlation during action execution ( r = 0.39, p = 0.055).

The P100 latency revealed a marginally significant main effect of DE group [ F (1, 37) = 3.939, P = 0.055, partial η 2 = 0.096], indicating that the latency in the LDE group (mean = 122.08, SD = 8.17) tended to be longer than in the RDE group (mean = 116.87, SD = 8.17).

The interaction effect was marginally significant ( P = 0.055, d = 0.68).

In the latter case, however, there was a marginally significant effect of group ( p < 0.055) with a small effect size.

It is worth mentioning that the association between the left anterior cerebellum and total aggression showed a marginally significant FDR-corrected effect ( p = 0.055).

A similar trend was observed between SSL-SC and SSLs, with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.055).

There was a marginally significant interaction between presentation order and group [ F (1,48) = 3.86, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.07 ], where there was worse memory for a target presented second (T2) relative to a target presented first (T1), but only after a delay, not immediately [ t = 2.75, p = 0.046] (see Figure 6A ).

A marginally significant difference between two measurements can only be shown for the start time across the events (main effect “measurement”: F (1,8) = 5.0, P ≤ 0.055), but not for the duration or end time.

However, the priming effect in the Speech-Only condition was marginally significant, M = 11.65, SD = 54.02, F (1, 173) = 2.58, p = 0.055, Cohen's d = 1.61.

There was a marginally significant higher HIV incidence rate among women who knew their partners' HIV status compared to those who did not know their partners' HIV status (p = 0.055).

There was a marginally significant inverse relationship between physical dominance and D f for those with highly dominant content only (β = −0.20, p = 0.055).

The difference between the groups was marginally significant (Kruskal–Wallis test, H (2) = 5.8, p = 0.055), corresponding to our finding of more variable tapping in the autism group.

Pairwise comparison, with sequential SIDAK correction, indicated a significant dog × male difference ( p = 0.003) and a marginally significant difference dog × female ( p = 0.055).

8 , equation a ) was marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.477, p = 0.055), and seemed to explain SHc activity better than the model with both direct corticospinal networks only ( R 2 = 0.06, p = 0.31) (model 2, equation b ).

These differences were not statistically significant, although a marginally significant trend could be seen for the CXCL8 secretion from cells infected with P. acnes type IA ( p = 0.055, after adjustments for multiple testing).

T1 depressive symptoms were a marginally significant predictor of T2 OOF status ( OR = 1.04, p = .055, CI = 1–1.05), after accounting for age, gender, and T1 OOF status.

Flow did not mediate the relationship between grit and any of the outcomes ( p > 0.05) and is marginally significant for the relationship between flow metacognition and burnout [ b = −0.12, SE = 0.06, p = 0.055, 95% CI (−0.22, −0.02), β = −0.09].