“marginally significant”

The main effect of region was marginally significant, F (4, 80) = 3.69, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.16.

Notably, in our study the stressor induced a marginally significant increase of REM% in the first 8 th segment of sleep (distressing film: Mean 1.18 min, SD 2.98; neutral film: Mean 0.10 min, SD 0.45; t = 1.97, p = 0.058) and a trend-level shortening of REM latency with increasing emotional impact in LSQR ( r = −.45, p = 0.062).

A likelihood ratio test comparing this unconstrained model (M3 in Table 7 ) to the most constrained model (M1) was marginally significant ( Δ χ ( Δ d f = 2 ) 2 = 5.68, p = 0.058), ΔRMSEA = 0.01, ΔCFI = 0.01.

An ANOVA indicated that there was only a marginally significant influence of depletion on composite, overall coherence shifting, F (2,103) = 2.927, p = .058, η 2 = .053.

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).

We also found a marginally significant interaction between Age Group, Incentive Valence, and Incentive Magnitude ( F (2,101) = 2.92, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.06).

In general, the differences between MS patients and controls still remained significant, with the exception of PASAT 2′′, where the effect of depression (although marginally significant; F(1,89) = 3.69, p = 0.058) tempered down the difference between the two groups (see Table 4 in the Supplementary Material available online at https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7404289 ).

In a two-way PERMANOVA analysis, the interaction between the Experimental point and Room factors was found to be marginally significant (F = 60.81, p = 0.058).

Although the relationships between waist circumference and fast food consumption were disappeared after energy adjustment (model 2) ( P = 0.103), the association between BMI and fast food intake was marginally significant ( P = 0.058). 5.

The regression model was marginally significant, R 2 = 0.35, F (7, 36) = 2.25, p = 0.058; Table 5 shows the results.

The interaction between guilt communication mode and violation degree was marginally significant for investment repair, F = 2.90, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.037.

Additionally, a marginally significant group × time interaction was observed in the P1 amplitude ( χ 2 (4) = 3.602, p = 0.058, B = 1.137; Fig. 5 B-C).

In NT children, the interaction between L2 proficiency and comparison [b] was significant (Estimate = 0.201, SE = 0.073, z = 2.743, p = 0.006; Table A in Appendix S6 ), with a marginally significant positive effect of L2 proficiency on gM sentences ( p = 0.058; Table B in S6 ).

Although this association was marginally significant in the crude model ( P = 0.058), adjustment for potential confounders strengthened the associations ( P = 0.022).

Interestingly, 1 memory B cell subcluster (C2) with relative upregulation of MALAT1 , which was reported to be associated with viability of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cell, 39 and TXNIP , which is required for expansion of germinal center B cell, 40 showed marginally significant depletion in IST non-responders ( P = 0.058; Figure 6 C–E).

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

VAS stress showed a marginally significant negative effect on integral MVC ( β = −0.007, SE = 0.004, t = −1.902, p = 0.058), indicating that each unit increase in stress was associated with an approximate 1.71% reduction in %MVC·s.

The interaction between search condition and target prevalence was marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 3.82, p = .058, η p 2 = .09, indicating that the LPE depended on search condition, although this interpretation should be made with caution (see Fig. 2 ).

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

However, the association between PD-L1 expression and lymph node metastasis was marginally significant ( p = 0.058).

The restriction digest controls form high leverage points when modelling this as a function of the number of PCR cycles, leading to significant or marginally significant models ( S25A–S25C Fig ) (30xCA: p = 0.058, 20xATCT: p<0.001, 10xATCT: p<0.001; GAM).

These differences were statistically significant in 2020 and marginally significant in 2018 ( p < 0.058) and 2022 ( p < 0.059) (Table 2 ).

Crucially, the analysis revealed a marginally significant Interaction Type × Noise interaction effect, F (1, 285) = 3.62, p = .058, η 2 = .01.

Lastly, marginally significant differences were observed in part 1 [χ 2 (3) = 7.474, p = 0.058].

We observed that the relative contribution of Flavobacteriaceae significantly decreased ( P = .037), corresponding to a marginally significant increase in the proportion of Enterobacteriaceae ( P = .058).