“marginally significant”

A marginally significant effect was found for the influence of loudness on the performance in the exercise condition, F (1,18) = 3.99, p = 0.06, and R 2 = 0.18.

Results were marginally significant for acceptance ( F 1,93 = 2.59; p = .06; partial η 2 = .05) and non-significant for glycated hemoglobin ( F 1,93 = 0.54; p = .58; partial η 2 = .01).

During the intervention period, within the control cohort there was a marginally significant increase in the proportion of individuals with increased frailty (compared with the intervention group) (Fisher's test p<0.06; online supplementary figure 10C ).

In HC, the opposite pattern emerged, with marginally significant negative correlations between learning from negative feedback and ∆FRN in the first ( r = −0.347 , p = 0.060) and the second half ( r = −0.350 , p = 0.058) of the observation condition, but not the control condition ( r = −0.155 , p = 0.412 and r = −0.275 , p = 0.142, respectively).

When family therapy was compared with another psychological or behavioural therapy, the effect was marginally significant in two studies with community participants, with [SMD = −2.45, 95% CI (−4.98, 0.09), p = 0.06].

Statistically significant summary RRs were found for NO 2 , PM 10 , and O 3 , while the combined RR for SO 2 was marginally significant (p = 0.060).

The interaction between emotion and location was still marginally significant, F (2,13) = 3.141, p = 0.060.

Nevertheless, an independent measures t -test revealed a marginally significant difference in that adult rats reared more than adolescents during presentation of the light ( t (30) = 2.0, P = 0.06).

For younger adults, there was a marginally significant difference, t (21) = 1.98, p = 0.06, d = 0.35, such that the Route Overlap was higher following active encoding, compared to passive encoding.

Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival using the log rank test for group comparisons revealed a marginally significant difference in overall survival ( p = 0.06).

24%), and this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

Further analysis of the three way interaction revealed that the interaction between Type of deck and Laterality showed significant differences in different regions, i.e., the interaction was significant in the frontal ( p = 0.007) and central ( p = 0.009) regions and marginally significant in the parietal region ( p = 0.060).

SES differences were less pronounced upon stratification, with trend tests significant only among females ( p = 0.004), and marginally significant among Hispanic males ( p = 0.06).

The contingency table analysis showed a marginally significant difference between infection by species ( p = 0.06), and no significant effects of dose, or species by dose interaction ( Table 1 ).

Recent negative interpersonal events had a significant negative relationship with the volume of the right hippocampus (β = -.29, p = .02) and a marginally significant negative relationship with the volume of the left hippocampus (β = -.26, p = .06).

Furthermore, the same pattern, yet marginally significant, was observed in a node of the right cerebellum (rho=–0.43, p=0.06).

A repeated measure analysis (ANOVA) with amount of coins (two levels: 10/0 versus 8/0) as a within-subjects factor and age group (five levels) as a between-subjects factor yielded the expected main effect of amount of coins [ F (1, 88) = 80.09, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant main effect of age [ F (4, 88) = 2.35, p = 0.06].

Values above the median for nADC 75 were marginally significant (HR = 0.618, 95% CI = 0.326–1.170, p = 0.06).

Furthermore, it was marginally significant following exclusion of participants with MDD ( p = .06, η p 2 = .08) or ADHD ( p = .06, η p 2 = .08).

A post-hoc t -test comparing the two groups at follow-up was marginally significant, t (38) = 1.94, p = .06.

Our results also showed that marital status had a marginally significant effect on sleep quality ( p = 0.06).

The difference in field force between Count 2 and Count 4 was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

The difference between ES and NS was marginally significant (H = 3.57, p = 0.06).

In contrast, cumulative protein intake showed no significant association at 12 mo, and only a marginally significant association with infant fat mass at 18 mo (Pearson R = 0.19, P = 0.06, Supplementary Figure 7A, B ).

In the upper alpha band, there were no significant effects of Training or Task, apart from a marginally significant interaction between Task and Hemisphere [ F (1,19) = 4.07, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.18], which revealed a larger hemispheric ERD difference (in favor of the right hemisphere) in the figural-spatial compared to the multiplication problems.