“marginally significant”

The cold-acclimated RT rats had higher levels of Ucp1 ( T = 3.708, P = 0.010, df = 6), Tfam ( T = 4.968, P = 0.003, df = 6), Prdm16 ( T = 3.376, P = 0.023, df = 6), and Pgc1a ( T = 2.378, P = 0.058, df = 6, marginally significant) expression in BAT, and the cold-acclimated RN rats had higher levels of Ucp1 ( T = 2.981, P = 0.025, df = 6) and Pgc1a ( T = 3.282, P = 0.035, df = 6) expression in BAT ( Fig. 4f ).

However, a marginally significant interaction between race and fitness level (p = 0.058) was noted, with RD children demonstrating a trend toward larger effect of fitness on inflammation than NHW children.

Present) × BMI remained marginally significant, b = −0.19, t (132) = 0.16, p = 0.058, 95% CI (−0.436, −0.008), suggesting that impulsivity does not mediate its influence on Malteser intake. 4.

A marginally significant treatment-by-group interaction ( F 1,26 = 3.54, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.116 ) emerged.

Decision times The main effect of fairness was marginally significant, F (1, 30) = 3.90, P = .058, η p 2 = 0.12 (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that participants completed decisions more quickly for fair offers (588.85 ± 139.46 ms) than unfair (609.01 ± 135.79 ms).

3 (A)), while the main effect of the right putamen volume was marginally significant (F (2, 96) = 3.332, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.065, Fig. 3 (A)).

It was marginally significant for A. tricoccum , ( P = 0.058; Table 2 ).

There is also a marginally significant association between higher income and receiving more information to satisfaction (mean 3.26 vs mean 3.03, P =.058).

We found there were increasing trends in the BMI mean values for most age groups in men except that the test for trend was marginally significant for men aged 50–59 ( p = 0.058).

In the case of N, a similar but much weaker pattern of associations was observed so that only in the case of years of education was the interaction marginally significant (p = 0.058).

Individual chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes were not directly associated with handgrip strength in the regression model, but the cumulative number of chronic diseases showed a marginally significant association with low handgrip strength (OR = 1.31, p = 0.058).

Adding RVP errors (difference scores) as a predictor variable again showed a relationship for cognitive reflection scores with ChoiceRT ( t = − 2.343, p = 0.027) but not RVP errors ( t = − 1.005, p = 0.324), with the overall model marginally significant, ( F (2,25) = 4.899, p = 0.058, R 2 = 0.254).

The analysis indicated a marginally significant effect of group, with AVGs showing a subtle advantage for detecting T1 [ F (1, 56) = 3.76, p = 0.058].

A marginally significant result was observed between II1 and II2 (MD = −33.69%, p = 0.058).

For the mask defined of >90% intensity of the peak (comprising only 7.7 ± 9.6 mm 3 ), the correlation was marginally significant ( p = 0.058).

A marginally significant interaction of baseline NT-proBNP with time was observed (p = 0.058), with a significant interaction at 24 months post-RT (β = − 0.00051, p = 0.010), indicating a smaller increase, or even a slight decrease, among patients with higher baseline levels in contrast with the increase observed in patients with lower baseline NT-proBNP ( Fig. 1 ).

The difference between women and men was marginally significant for the 2003/04 (p = 0.058) and the 2010/11 (p = 0.056) seasons.

Only Enabling factors as a group (income, social support, neighborhood safety and competing needs) offered marginally significant predictive power ( p = 0.058).

Additionally, there was a marginally significant interaction between the two for pro-social positive emotion, F (10, 388) = 1.808, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.045.

The interaction effect of POLARITY_MAIN × POLARITY_SUB was marginally significant [see Figure 2 ; F (1,16) = 4.16, p = 0.058].

Attention had a marginally significant effect on intercepts [ F (1, 20) = 4.0, p = .058], due to faster responses to non-rotated stimuli in the single-attention condition.

Further stratification by proband’s sex revealed stronger positive, marginally significant correlation with t-DHEA ( ρ = 0.54, P = 0.058) among males with female probands.

These analyses revealed a marginally significant emotion effect (i.e., aversive vs. neutral) for low-vividness encoded associations in Study 1 (t (29) = 1.97, p = 0.058), which was not replicated by Study 2 (t (27) = 0.27, p = 0.787) nor Study 3 (t (27) = -1.74, p = 0.094).

There was positive but marginally significant correlation between the proportion of Beijing genotype isolates and that of male general population in corresponding geographic units ( r = 0.23, P = 0.058).

However, when the expressed emotion was happiness, the difference between the two was marginally significant F (1,61) =3.72, p = 0.058, η 2 p = 0.05.