“marginally significant”

In healthy overweight or obese individuals with central adiposity, consuming 15% of the total daily calories from pecans (~42.5 g/2000 Kcal) for 4 weeks lowered both TC and LDLc, although the magnitude of change compared with the control diet (typical American diet) was marginally significant ( p = 0.056, p = 0.067, respectively).

The FRN for loss ( M = 5.86, SE = 1.18 μV) was smaller than that for gain ( M = 12.89, SE = 1.21 μV) in HN, F (1,40) = 83.90, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.68, whereas this difference ( M loss = 10.51, SE = 1.18 μV; M gain = 12.01, SE = 1.21 μV) was marginally significant in LN, F (1,40) = 3.87, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.09.

Additionally, the decrease of SWAY(z) from Set 1 to Set 2 was marginally significant [ 52 ] ( p =.056), as well as the decrease of RANGE(y) ( p =.07).

From the posthoc comparisons, a marginally significant difference was observed between the positive and neutral doctor–patient relationship stimuli ( p = 0.056; Fig. 2 ): the positive doctor–patient relationship stimuli (1.69 ± 3.45 μV) elicited a more positive P2 than the neutral ones (0.89 ± 3.62 μV).

RTRs who were nonobese but had metabolic abnormalities demonstrated a marginally significant increase in the risk of MASLD compared with those in the MHNO group, with an OR of 2.74 ( p = 0.056).

Pairwise comparisons showed that the Phase*Group effect was driven by a marginally significant difference between groups in fear acquisition, F 1, 218 = 3.68, p = .056, ηp 2 = 0.01.

Result We first conducted a 2 (priming type: individualism, collectivism) ×4 (social distance of close target: individual in the same country, individual in the same town, friend, family member) × 2 (individuals toward whom empathy is extended: socially distant target only, socially close target only) × 2 (contribution level: empathic, prosocial act) repeated ANOVA and found a marginally significant main effect of priming, F (1, 199) = 3.70, p = 0.056, ηp 2 = 0.02, a post hoc test found that participants’ overall moral judgments were significantly higher in the collectivist priming condition ( M = 6.19, SD = 0.12) than in the individualist priming condition ( M = 5.87, SD = 0.11), in which collectivism had higher overall moral ratings than individualism for different types of acts.

Postnatal life events became marginally significant ( p = 0.056), such that more yearly life events was associated with larger normalized AGV.

Overall, there was a marginally significant difference found between the reed 41.7 ± 40.06 cm and rush defense distances 18.8 ± 28.64 cm, t = 1.98, df = 33, P = 0.056, though the differences were significant for the aggressive behaviors (see ahead).

The difference between the Collective/Random ( M = 2062 ms, SD = 253 ms) and Individual/Random ( M = 1919 ms, SD = 324 ms) conditions was marginally significant and in the expected direction, t (61) = 1.95, p = 0.056, d = 0.48, with a meaningful effect size.

Of those who had not received depot neuroleptics, it was offered to 20% of the psychosis and 7% of the non-psychosis patients which was marginally significant (χ 2 (2)=5.75, P=0.056).

A marginally significant effect of condition, F (1,15) = 4.31, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.22, revealed higher hit rates when earn colors were presented first relative to when save colors were presented first, specifically at shorter onsets (8 ~ 38), F (1,15) = 4.81, p = 0.044, η 2 = 0.24, where onset information was limited (left panel, Fig. 4a ).

LBD) demonstrated a significant main effect for picture position [ F (14,280) = 206.97, p < .001, η 2 = .91] and a marginally significant main effect for participant group: RBD patients tended to have a higher proportion of first object reports compared to LBD patients [ F (1,20) = 4.12, p = .056, η 2 = .17].

The post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed that the global efficiency of the PN + , CN- and CN + conditions are significantly higher than the baseline (all post-hoc p s < 0.016), while the difference between the PN- and the baseline is marginally significant ( post-hoc p < 0.056).

The results showed a marginally significant moderate effect of Real (tDCS) compared to that of Sham (ES = 0.61, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.23; p = 0.056).

Meanwhile, for participants who expected speakers to “hedge” and not necessarily show the strongest evidence first (238 participants, or 33% of the sample), no weak evidence effect was found ( m = 50.1, group difference = −15.4, post-hoc t (367) = −6.3, p < 0.001.) We found only a marginally significant asymmetry in slider bias, p = 0.056, with short-biased participants giving slightly larger endorsements ( m = 1.6 slider points) across the board.

In terms of beta diversity, the change of the beta diversity metric from the beginning to the end of the shift among the pooled workers was marginally significant or significant (main effect of time p = 0.056 by PERMANOVA for Bray-Curtis and 0.014 for Jaccard).

A marginally significant difference in reaction times was observed between groups ( p = 0.056), regardless of the condition, suggesting faster reaction times in the l-IPA group.

A further difference in C6 was driven by marginally significant differences between the DCD and ADHD groups (DCD: M = −2.93, SD = 2.31, ADHD: M = −1.02, SD = 0.94, p = 0.056) and ADHD and control groups (Control: M = −2.64, SD = 1.43, p = 0.076; see Figure 2 ).

A 6 (SNR) × 2 (group) mixed ANOVA on arcsine-transformed 22 accuracy revealed that older adults were less accurate than young adults irrespective of SNR ( F 1,30 =19.48, P <0.001), and accuracy increased with increasing SNR in both groups ( F 5,150 =399.10, P <0.001), with a marginally significant group × SNR interaction ( F 5,150 =2.21, P =0.056, Fig. 1b ).

Differences in g s were marginally significant among species ( F 3,19 = 3.11, P = 0.056, Fig. 2 B), with L. clavatum and to a lesser extent S. annotinum exhibiting higher g s .

Adolescent gender was kept in the model because of a marginally significant effect ( b = −0.28, p = 0.056), and the other nonsignificant covariates were removed from the subsequent models.

Differences between post-program and follow-up are marginally significant ( b = 0.13, SE = 0.057, p = .056), showing a slight increase.

Analysis of the random effects structure revealed that the Subject ID random intercept was marginally significant (Wald Z = 1.91, p = 0.056), accounting for 14% of the total variance (ICC = 0.14).

Phylogenetic Comparative Analyses We observed a significant phylogenetic signal for average infection load (P = 0.033), a marginally significant phylogenetic signal for hazard ratio (P = 0.056) and no significant phylogenetic signal for log response ratio (P = 0.118, Fig 3A–3C ; Table 1 ).