“marginally significant”

Anuran life history traits We found a marginally significant effect of photoperiod on green frog larval development, with the early‐season (April) photoperiod larvae developing faster ( χ 2 = 3.65, p = .056; Figure 1a ).

In comparison, when contrasting Met and Val homozygotes, COMT effect on baseline iron was not significant (β = −0.198, p = 0.37), whereas the effect on iron accumulation was marginally significant (β = −0.496, p = 0.056).

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).

In male patients with Alport syndrome, after age adjustment, the negative association between baseline urinary MCP-1/Cr and eGFR slope was marginally significant ( P = 0.056) ( Supplementary Table S1 ).

ICU admission tended to be more frequent among patients who died from VGI, with a marginally significant difference (14% vs 4%; P = .056).

25 at the same coordinates, yielding a linear and marginally significant relationship (R 2 adj = 0.23; p = 0.056) with only one estimate as an outlier (Fig. 1C ).

A marginally significant difference was found for Affective Value between these participant groups (z = 1.91, p = 0.056, two-tailed; drop: X = 6.3 ± 0.3; no drop: X = 5.7 ± 0.2), while no difference was observed for Purposeful Intent (z = 0.85, p = 0.395, two-tailed; drop: X = 6.3 ± 0.2; no drop: X = 6.1 ± 0.1).

After including the covariates, the main effect of facial trustworthiness became marginally significant ( b = 0.09, p = .056) while the patterns of the other effects remained the same.

The main effect of orientation was marginally significant [ F (1, 30) = 3.95, P = .056], showing faster RTs for upright hand postures (635 ms) compared with inverted hand postures (645 ms).

For the high-strength group, the linear regression revealed a marginally significant effect of intergroup comparison on the intention to conserve water ( b = 11.779, SE = 6.115, t = 1.93, p = 0.056).

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).

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.

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.

For the right temporal and the right occipital cortex, marginally significant interactions were found in the delta band [ F (2, 79) = 2.985, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.070] and theta band [ F (2, 79) = 2.723, p = 0.072, η 2 = 0.064].

39 , 40 All G × G interactions remained nominally significant ( Supplementary Table 13 ), except one pair (rs521828 and rs204999) that was marginally significant ( p = 0.056).

Considering only the MEM anticipations towards the target direction, differences between ASD and TD became marginally significant ( p = 0.056, d = 0.5, see Table 4 ).

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).

Beta diversity through NMDS revealed no separation between contact lens wearers and control in females; however, there was a marginally significant difference in the male subgroup ( P = 0.056, F = 2.68, R 2 = 0.13; Fig. 4B ), suggesting a possible effect at the 10% significance level.

The main effect of video-based absolute accuracy was marginally significant ( β = −0.52, SE = 0.27, t = −1.94, and p = 0.056), indicating that larger absolute accuracy seemed to be associated with poorer audiovisual comprehension performance.

bone marrow aspiration) was marginally significant (β = 7.16, 95% CI [−0.18, 14.50], p = 0.056).

For sporophore length (Figure 5A ), a marginally significant clipping × mowing interaction was detected ( F = 3.891, p = 0.056).

The difference in selection rate was marginally significant in Block 2 ( p = .056) but significant in Block 3, suggesting the maintenance of small associations between target word and in‐cluster T2 during training ( t (38) = 3.51, p = .001).

Specifically, the main effect of the PIS significantly improved trust in COVID‐19 vaccine‐related information ( F (1, 323) = 4.39, p = .037), and the reduction in COVID‐19 vaccine safety‐related worry was marginally significant ( F (1, 323) = 3.68, p = .056).

The three-way interaction was marginally significant, F (2,144) = 2.95, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.04 ( Figure 5 ).

Relationship between Facial Color Type and Hunting Behavior The proportion of facial color types differed marginally significant between the two types of hunting behaviors (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.056; Figure 5b ); the proportion of group-hunting species with A-type faces was higher than for species with other face types.