“marginally significant”

The latency time until manifestation for pediatric was shorter and marginally significant ( P = 0.06). 3.4.

Similar to maternal influences, paternal behavioral control also served as a negative predictor of adolescent Internet addiction ( β = −0.20, p < 0.001, Cohen's f 2 = 0.04), while paternal psychological control showed a marginally significant positive prediction ( β = 0.04, p = 0.06, Cohen's f 2 = 0.002, see Table 2 ).

The relation of attentional control to reading comprehension was marginally significant (0.19, p = 0.06) after controlling for short-term memory, decoding, vocabulary, and inference.

For married women, age was a powerful predictor of average quality satisfaction, with those in their 20s (.45, p < .05) and 30s (.55, p < .001) reporting significantly higher levels than the reference group in their 50s. Very few other factors predicted average quality satisfaction for women, save marginally significant effects for Evangelical Protestants (.35, p = .06) and strong Democrats (−.30, p = .07).

The moderating effect of the risk domain factor was marginally significant [ Q M(1) = 3.29, p = 0.06; heterogeneity: Q E(17) = 232.10, p < 0.001].

After adjustment for age, sex and diabetes mellitus as well as laboratory and dialysis‐related variables, the risk for all‐cause mortality remained significant in the moderate weight loss group (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.07–2.95; p = 0.03) and was marginally significant in the moderate weight gain group (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.96–5.13; p = 0.06).

Concerning reaction time, there was a marginally significant TIME × TREATMENT GROUP interaction with df = 2(28), F = 2.7, P = 0.06.

A marginally significant interaction between CtDCS condition and emotion was indeed found ( F 4,56 = 2.47, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.15).

The difference between the dyslexia and dysgraphia groups was marginally significant (p=.06) on RD in left corticospinal, but not significant on RD in left superior longitudinal fasciculus.

for all following estimates), but it is important to note that those results were marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

Gaze Behavior Percentage dwell time Figure 4 shows the mean percentage dwell time data. A marginally significant interaction between anxiety condition and AOI was revealed, F(1,15) = 4.15, p = .06, η 2 p = .22, and a non-significant interaction between cognitive load and AOI, F(1,15) = 1.35, p = .26, η 2 p = .08.

These associations were also significant when examined (only) at the classroom level (see Model 3), with the exception of the classroom-level association between voice as influence and listening democratically, which was marginally significant ( p = .06).

Regarding Europe, the short-term effect of clean energy shocks on tourism appears weakly negative and marginally significant ( p = 0.06), possibly reflecting transitional frictions or sectoral inertia.

A marginally significant linear, positive relationship described the abundance of extra-large ( ≥ 50 cm) fishes as a function of complexity ( S1d Fig ; DRR P = 0.06), when accounting for reef depth where deeper reefs supported more extra-large fishes.

A positive and marginally significant relation was found between such collaboration and sense of coherence within a community (β = 0.137, p = 0.06), social capital (β = 0.119, p = 0.08), and perceived benefits (β = 0.116, p = 0.09).

A marginally significant trend of increasing concentration was observed with decreasing age among applicator children (p = 0.060), and younger children within these families had significantly higher concentrations when compared to their older siblings (p = 0.040).

Results of correlation analysis were then subject to unsupervised clustering (using the Ward’s method) in order to identify clusters of parameters with similar correlational behavior, which were presented in the form of a correlation matrix (i.e., heatmap). For the sake of increased readability, the heatmap shows only statistically and marginally significant ( p < 0.06) correlations.

A 2 (gender) × 3 (experimental conditions) ANOVA on the perceived importance of the socially related SDGs indicated a significant main effect of experimental conditions, F (2,293) = 4.72, p = 0.01, η p 2 = 0.08, a significant main effect of gender, F (1,293) = 23.95, p < 0.01, η p 2 = 0.08, and a marginally significant interactive effect of gender and experimental conditions, F (2,293) = 2.82, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.02.

An ANOVA on the error rates showed a marginally significant main effect of study status, F (1, 59) = 3.68, p = .060, η p 2 = .06 , indicating that participants tended to make fewer errors to studied words than to nonstudied words.

We showed a significant difference in the probability distribution between iTBS-L DLPFC and cTBS-L DLPFC (Wald–Wolfowitz test, P = 0.03) with a marginally significant difference between cTBS-L DLPFC and cTBS-R DLPFC ( P = 0.06).

Results showed a significant effect of TIME [ F (1, 35) = 10.42, p = 0.003], in line with overall forgetting over the retention interval and a marginally significant effect of REGULARITY [ F (1, 35) = 3.79, p = 0.06], reflecting better temporal order memory for no-rule faces than rule faces, across groups and retrieval sessions ( Figure 5C ).

Recommended calcium DRIs for their age were met by 31 (16.75%) women; there was a marginally significant difference between women with low BMD and women with normal BMD (20.69% vs. 11%; p=0.06), that can be possibly explained by reverse causality and higher perceived health risk with aging, but significant difference between women in BMDT3 subgroup and women in BMDT1 subgroup (24.19% vs. 6.55%; p<0.05).

A similar but non-significant trend was observed for the rule following scale [ F (2, 77) = 1.79, p = 0.17], however, the linear contrast analysis did show a marginally significant linearity for this trend F (1, 77) = 3.59, p = 0.06.

After adjustment was made for multivariate factors (age, BMD, eGFR, albumin, exercise, smoking, alcohol, family history of fracture, IHD, CVD and previous fracture), the non‐diabetes mellitus with high CRP group had a fracture risk of 1.11‐fold in men and 1.16‐fold in women compared with the non‐diabetes mellitus with low CRP group (reference), a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.06 for men, and 0.08 for women).

For fear, AOR was 0.45, which was marginally significant ( p = .06).