“marginally significant”

The risk group effect was marginally significant F(1, 97) = 3.71, p = 0.06, ηp 2 = 0.04, and there was no group*sex interaction F(1, 97) = 0.18, p = 0.67, ηp 2 = 0.002.

Also, after removing the thirteen TG+ subjects (three of whom developed T1D) from the T1D analysis, the association between ovalbumin antibody concentrations and T1D development became marginally significant (p = 0.06) ( Table 2 ) .

The ethics program’s scope significantly reduces the frequency of negative feelings (B = −0.38; p < 0.05) but has no impact on the frequency of positive feelings (B = 0.32; p < 0.06; marginally significant) or satisfaction with life (B = 0.04; n.s.) ( Table 3 ).

This correlation is significant ( r = 0.50, p = 0.013) when the MCI group is eliminated, and it remains marginally significant when it includes only the two elderly groups ( r = 0.45; p = 0.06), which show (at the group level) ARC-scores close to zero.

In contrast, confusion did not significantly predict exploratory behavior; however, in case of incorrect answers the path coefficient was positive and marginally significant ( p = 0.060).

This three‐way interaction was marginally significant for externalizing symptoms (β = .62 (−0.02 to 1.25); p = .06) (Table 2 ).

During gliding segments, juveniles experienced marginally significant lower wind support (adults: 0.45 ± 0.35, juveniles: 0.03 ± 0.04; U = 41, P = 0.06) and similar side-wind (adults: 0.32 ± 0.17, juveniles: −0.01 ± 0.03; U = 39, P = 0.76).

A marginally significant group difference was found for L2 learners groups, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.05.

The posterior midline ROI shows a marginally significant interaction Polarity * Truth [F(1, 30) = 3.811, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.113].

A marginally significant difference in the concentration of 5-HIAA [ F (2, 31) = 2.987, p = 0.06] was detected among the three groups.

There was a marginally significant positive relationship between private allelic richness and forest cover ( z = 1.86, P = 0.06).

Baseline IL-6 was a marginally significant factor ( F 2,488 = 2.70, p = 0.06) suggesting greater reactivity in individuals with lower baseline IL-6 levels compared to those with higher levels at 75 min ( p = 0.02) but not at 45 min post-stress ( p = 0.16).

For TP, a marginally significant interaction with SC was observed for intolerant taxa richness ( p = 0.06, deviance explained = 24%), and no significant interaction with SC was observed for tolerant taxa richness ( p = 0.18, deviance explained = 41.8%) (Figure 4C,D ).

When comparing participants who had follow-up data to those who did not, baseline REAL-DQ scores on three subscales demonstrated marginally significant differences (Healthy Habits, p = .06; Managing Diabetes, p = .04; Emotions and Well-being, p = .06) with participants who scored higher at baseline being less likely to complete follow-up measures.

No polymorphism showed association with bladder cancer risk at the 5% significance level, although individuals carrying the 280His variant allele had a marginally significant increased risk of bladder TCC compared to those carrying the homozygote wildtype genotype (adjusted OR [95% CI], 1.50 [0.98–2.28], p = 0.06).

Pairwise contrasts revealed this effect was largely attributable to larger WM capacity in musicians relative to nonmusicians ( p <0.01) and a marginally significant effect between M and C ( p = 0.06).

The link between accommodation dissatisfaction and food insecurity was marginally significant (p = .060), suggesting only a weak association.

The difference in these linear trends was marginally significant ( P = .06).

In Irele, access to protected dug wells was marginally significant (AOR: 1.79, 95% CI: 0.96–3.21, p = 0.06), while in Ile-Oluji, access to river water emerged as a significant risk factor (AOR: 7.97, 95% CI: 1.81–58.58, p = 0.02).

Group × bone × site interactions BR is the only variable that demonstrated a marginally significant ( p = .06) group × bone × site interaction, where the DMPN&CN's distal site BR on the fifth metatarsal averaged 4.5 (highest), resulting in the lowest resistance to fracture (Fig. 2 ).

Comparison between pulses revealed that survival of beetles from high complexity landscape (HC) was 23% higher after the second pulse compared to the first, but the observed difference was marginally significant (t-ratio = 1.861, df = 166, p = 0.06).

We analysed the Relative Efficiency Index (REI an indicator of mixture dynamics independent of initial plant size) among all chosen species (the data are from the previous pairwise competition experiment), and found no significant REI differences among EU species (χ 2 = 5.38, P = 0.51) and marginally significant REI differences among NA species (χ 2 = 12.01, P = 0.06; cf.

Participants with low R/S importance, and independent of risk status, had significant or marginally significant emotional content effects over both hemispheres, all χ 2 [ 1 ] ≥ 3.62, all p < 0.06, 0.17 ≤ w ≤ 0.45, although nevertheless stronger over the right hemisphere, as supported by a marginally significant emotional content × hemisphere interaction for high risk participants with low R/S importance, χ 2 [ 1 ] = 2.93, p = 0.07, w = 0.15.

Autonomous talk There was a main effect of event valence on mothers’ autonomous talk, χ 2 (1, N = 141) = 14.01, p < 0.001, φ = 0.32, qualified by a marginally significant Culture × Valence interaction, χ 2 (2, N = 141) = 5.61, p = 0.06, φ = 0.20.

This is supported by regressions of mean number of emerged adults (data from reps #4–6) on mean eggs invested (reps #1–3), where the slope is marginally significant for alfalfa aphid clones (F 1, 3 = 8.7419, P = 0.060), but clearly insignificant for clover clones (F 1, 3 = 2.50, P = 0.2021).