“marginally significant”

Aside from the interaction term of FoMO × condition being a marginally significant predictor of control ( p = 0.06), attachment anxiety and the interaction term of attachment anxiety × condition were not significant predictors of any fundamental need.

In the higher fit group, a group × time interaction was observed at the 1st, F (1, 23) = 12.10, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.35, 2nd, F (1, 23) = 5.94, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.21, and 3rd PI, F (1, 23) = 5.32, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.19), due to a longer IT at post-test than at pre-test in the control group [1st PI, F (1, 10) = 12.94, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.56; 2nd PI, F (1, 10) = 5.97, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.37, and marginally significant at the 3rd PI; F (1, 10) = 4.43, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.31].

A McNemar test (based on a binomial distribution—children answered either one or two of two questions correctly), however, revealed a marginally significant result ( p = .06).

Pairwise comparison showed that the difference between sex congruent and incongruent trials in the “above 12” group was not significant for face stimuli ( p = 0.5), but marginally significant for body stimuli ( p = 0.06).

The results were considered statistically significant for P < 0.05 and marginally significant at P < 0.06.

We also found a marginally significant interaction; F 1,581 = 3.53, p = 0.06, such that watching the video inflated people's confidence when the ‘without dying’ question was asked first.

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).

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.

However, this difference in recurrence frequency is marginally significant (chi‐square test, P = 0.06). 3.4.

Subsequently, we found positive correlations between ICD and apoptosis (PCC = 0.55, β = 0.43, p = 0.03), ICD and necroptosis (PCC = 0.74, β = 0.78, p = 0.002), and apoptosis and necroptosis (PCC = 0.83, β = 1.11, p = 0.0001) within the ARVC myocardium, whereas the correlation between ICD and pyroptosis was marginally significant (PCC = 0.49, β = 0.86, p = 0.06) ( Supplementary Figure S2 ). 3.3.

We found a marginally significant negative effect of watering treatment on cover diversity ( p = .06, Figure 2 h) but no significant effect of OTC treatment on cover diversity.

Three-group comparisons showed, however, a marginally significant effect of group on TL in naïve cytotoxic T cells ( F [2,34] = 3.07, p = 0.06) and a significant effect on TL in memory cytotoxic T cells ( F [2,13.7] = 5.68, p = 0.02), with a stepwise decrease in TL from non-depressed control subjects over MDD patients without CSA to MDD patients with CSA, who presented the shortest TL.

The context type by group interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 26) = 3.9, p = .06, η p 2 = .12.

obscurus (weight shift) was negatively and significantly correlated with lipophilicity (r = −0.84, p = 0.03; Figure 3 A), where a marginally significant (r = −0.73, p = 0.06; Figure 3 B) negative tendency between the feeding behavior and logVP were observed. 3.

At the broad scale, a Mantel test showed a marginally significant non-random association between genetic and spatial distance (Monte Carlo test p < 0.06; 50 000 replications).

In addition, there was a marginally significant difference in blood Leucocytes count ( p = 0.06) and fecal Calprotectin ( p = 0.06) between the three groups. 3.2.

In terms of FXAND, 20 PM allele carriers (66.7%) were diagnosed with depression, with the likelihood of depression being significantly reduced for carriers of PM alleles with greater AR-Sb ( p = 0.02, Figure 4 a) or marginally significant for carriers of PM alleles with higher AR-mPCR ( p = 0.06, 335 Figure 4 b).

Correlation analysis showed a positive albeit marginally significant association between workload and JA ( r = 0.17, p = 0.06), whereas zero-order correlations between log cortisol/DHEA(S) ratio and workload ( r = 0.07, p = 0.46) or JA ( r = 0.10, p = 0.28) were not significant.

Results for the Non-Risks items are marginally significant ( p = 0.06), showing a tendency to decrease self-risk behaviors: the mean score and standard deviation at pre-test were T0: M = 50.03, SD = 11.48, while at post-test T1: M = 44.35, SD = 10.99.

Thus, in pooled data, the high‐trauma treatment group, relative to high‐trauma controls, demonstrated lower endline scores for HI ( β = −7.25, p < .01), HD ( β = −8.20, p < .01), PSS ( β = −3.40, p < .001), and AYMH ( β = −4.20, p < .001), with marginally significant changes for SDQ difficulties ( β = −1.27, p = .06).

Planned comparisons indicated a significant difference between the 800 and 1100 ms intervals, F (1, 30) = 33.67, p < 0.001, whereas the difference between 1100 and 1400 ms intervals was marginally significant, F (1, 30) = 3.61, p = 0.06.

The main effect of Block was marginally significant [ F (2.864,112) = 2.602, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.085], whereas no interaction between Session and Block was identified [ F (4,112) = 0.654, p = 0.625, partial η 2 = 0.023].

However, a marginally significant relationship was observed between SRT and SQR benefits under the slow DRC condition, r (31) = .33, p = .06.

frontalis ) and eastern Palearctic (with break at Lena River) grouped together and the western Palearctic as a second group; although it was marginally significant (Φ CT = 0.135, p = 0.06, Table 3 ).

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 ).