“marginally significant”

This relationship was marginally significant when bare plots were excluded from the model ( P = 0.06).

Yet, in our model, parrotfish density was marginally significant ( p = 0.06), the component of variance was minor and lower than other significant variables (3.9%), and no interactions were observed with taxa.

Calculation of Pearson correlations indicated that changes in the factor scores for conviction were not significantly correlated with baseline values of the JTC factor, r = .03 ( p = .65) and r = .04 ( p = .56), for the changes between 0 and 3 months and between 0 and 12 months, respectively, or the belief flexibility factor for the change between 0 and 12 months, r = −0.04 ( p = .52), though the correlation between baseline belief flexibility and change in conviction in the first three months was marginally significant, r = −0.13 ( p < .06).

The ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (1,37) = 3.74, p = 0.06, and a significant main effect of block, F (2.3,84) = 37.38, p < 0.001 [Greenhouse–Geisser corrected; linear contrast: F (1,37) = 53.88, p < 0.001].

Post hoc paired-sample t -tests reported significant difference between Static and Moving conditions at the presentation duration of 1200 ms [ t (11) = −4.586, p = 0.002], though it failed to reach significance under 800 ms [ t (11) = 0.561, p > 0.999], and with marginally significant difference under 1000 ms [ t (11) = −2.717, p = 0.060] presentation duration (all Bonferroni-corrected).

For instance, BY carries a marginally significant excess of allelic singletons that confer resistance relative to the other three strains (Fisher's exact test, Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.06; Figure 3C ; Table 1 ).

Our reciprocal transplant experiment revealed a marginally significant pattern of local adaptation ( P = 0.06): while resting structures from four out of five populations resulted in relatively high infection intensity in spring when stored in their local population during the off-season, this pattern was reversed in population 609 ( Fig. 5 b).

A marginally significant partial correlation was found between the frequency of imagery intrusions and detail recognition memory after controlling for gist ( r = .24, p = .06).

IL-6 (but not CRP) was a marginally significant predictor ( P = 0.06) of GFDCAV at 5 years ( Table 3 ).

In left-handers, the relationship between BAS and alpha asymmetry was marginally significant in the reversed direction (r = .56, p = .06), despite the small number of left-handers in our sample (N = 12).

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

The AC total score also showed a moderate and marginally significant correlation with the overall external peer feedback score provided in Year 4 [ r =0.38, p =0.06 (one-tailed)].

There was a marginally significant effect of irradiation × treatment interaction on immobility (F (1,22) = 3.81, P = 0.06).

At the uncorrected level, the detectability difference was also significant in the time window between saccade cue and saccade onset ( p = 0.027), and marginally significant during saccade ( p = 0.060).

Rotation had a significant effect on RTs, F (1,21) = 19.65, MSe = 7459.94, p < 0.001, and a marginally significant effect on errors, F (1,21) = 4.19, MSe = 0.03, p < 0.06, with rotated conditions being 13 ms faster and 2.7% more often correct.

There was also a significant main effect of infusion type ( F 2,40 = 6.08, p < 0.005) and a marginally significant reproductive state by infusion type interaction ( F 2,40 = 3.11, p = 0.06).

Also the response to left unilateral trials showed a marginally significant improvement in both the immediate and delayed post-hypnotic testing sessions (100% correct for both sessions vs. 9/12 correct before hypnosis, CHI2 (1) = 3.4, p = 0.06).

SCG 5 (51.2%) and other SCG (72.7%) (p = 0.002), and less likely to have infiltrates in the upper lung: SCG 3b (80.0%), 5 (95.3%), and 4 or 6a (100.0%), with the differences being marginally significant (p = 0.060).

In addition, self-reported intrusions of the positive autobiographical memory also correlated somewhat to general distress, significantly during the suppression phase, r= 0.32, p< 0.01 and marginally significant during the expression phase, r= 0.21, p= 0.06.

On the contrary, the comparison between late deaf CI recipients and their matched controls revealed a significant main effect of Condition (F(1.5, 27.8) = 50.6, p<0.001, effect size η p 2 = 0.3) but only a marginally significant interaction between Condition and Group (F(1.5, 27.8) = 3.3, p = 0.06, effect size η p 2 = 0.2).

Marginally significant differences were recorded on comparing the presence of pain by age intervals (chi-squared = 5.612, p=0.06).

This revealed marginally significant differences between fingers and toes ( F 2,6 = 4.58, p = 0.06) and significant differences between digits ( F 4,12 = 13.27, p < 0.0005).

In addition, valence group × task interactions were marginally significant [ F (2, 40) = 3.07, p = 0.06].

A marginally significant increase was also observed in patients for the syllable-based version (U = 114, P = 0.06, df = 36).

Latent period decreased with increasing pustule density on all host genotypes and there was a marginally significant (p = 0.06) interaction effect between pustule density and host genotype on latent period (Table 4 ).