“marginally significant”

But this effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.06) with a wide CI due to the small sample.

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).

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.

However, sports participation exhibited a significant negative main effect (β20 = −0.4974 ± 0.2298, p < 0.05), while the interaction term between sports participation and age showed a marginally significant negative trend (β30 = −0.0965 ± 0.0517, p ≈ 0.06).

The three-way interaction of prime duration × prime congruence × group was marginally significant, F (1, 48) = 3.6, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.97.

N2 Components For N2 amplitudes, the interaction among Task, Expression, and Gender was marginally significant ( F ( 2 , 64 ) = 3.0, p = 0.06), and boys exhibited more negative N2 responses to happy faces than fearful faces in the flanker task ( t ( 64 ) = 2.79, p < 0.01).

A 3 (Group: 3 mo, 15 mo, 22 mo) × Time Period (CS, ITI, Post-CS) ANOVA conducted to assess responding during this session found a main effect of time period, F (2, 34) = 6.46, MSE = 1067.50, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.28, a marginally significant interaction, F (3, 34) = 2.57, MSE = 1067.50, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.23, and no effect of group, F = 1.86, p = 0.19, despite a clear visual trend showing decreased freezing in middle-aged and old animals.

The Mg + LY treatment decreased the levels of Akt ( p < 0.01) and pAkt ( p < 0.01), with a marginally significant difference in p85 protein expression compared with the Mg group ( p = 0.06) ( Figure 7 E), while the Mg + Ra treatment significantly decreased the expression level of p85 ( p < 0.05), Akt ( p < 0.05) and pAkt ( p < 0.05) compared with the Mg group.

A significant quadratic CS X phase interaction [ F (1,58) = 7.23, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.11 ] and a marginally significant quadratic group X phase interaction [ F (2,58) = 2.90, p = .06, η p 2 = 0.09 ] were also observed.

Marginally significant differences were found between the female and male groups at baseline for inter- and intra-hemispheric gamma coherence [ t (35) = 1.97, 1.96, p = 0.06], but not for theta or alpha.

There was a marginally significant main effect of compatibility [ F (1,132) = 3.51, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.02], indicating more correctly solved items per second for compatible ( M = 1.06, SD = 0.28) as compared to incompatible number pairs ( M = 0.93, SD = 0.27).

Separate analyses by gender showed a marginally significant age-by-trial number interaction in males ( b = −0.01, p = 0.06, 95%CI = −0.03/.001).

Differences betweeen groups were marginally significant (X 2 3 =7.3; P =.06).

Furthermore, we identified a marginally significant main effect for condition [ F (2, 47)=2.98, p =0.060] and a highly significant condition×group interaction [ F (2, 47)=8.54, p <0.001].

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).

Subgroup analysis of esketamine regimens showed a significant reduction in the risk of oxygen desaturation (RR = 0.51, 95%CI = [0.35, 0.74], p = 0.0003); hypotension (RR = 0.38, 95%CI = [0.31, 0.46], p < 0.00001); and bradycardia (RR = 0.24, 95%CI = [0.12, 0.47], p < 0.0001) in the esketamine-propofol combination, and a marginally significant reduction ( oxygen desaturation : RR = 0.23, 95%CI = [0.05, 1.06], p = 0.06, and test for subgroup differences p = 0.32; hypotension : RR = 0.26, 95%CI = [0.07, 1.00], p = 0.05, and test for subgroup differences p = 0.59; bradycardia : RR = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02, 1.12], p = 0.06, and test for subgroup differences p = 0.64) in the esketamine-non-propofol combination in adults.

The difference was marginally significant ( t = 1.96, p < 0.06), but it did not produce effects on the N400 amplitude.

The results showed that there was a marginally significant interaction between regulatory focus and emotion in regard to the behavior of water-saving information dissemination ( F (1,56) = 3.62, p = 0.06)).

However, the difference in induced TBA between groups was marginally significant for a memory load size of 2 ( t 22 = 1.92, p = .06, Bonferroni corrected), and not significant for a memory load size of 4 ( t 22 = 0.12, p = .47, Bonferroni corrected). 3.4 Interregional TBPS Figure 3(a) shows the spatial patterns of the interregional TBPS.

The within‐participants contrasts for conservation values showed a marginally significant linear effect, F (1, 197) = 3.47, p = .06, partial η 2 = .02, and no significant quadratic effect, F < 1, p = .86, partial η 2 < .01.

Partial correlation analyses revealed that the correlations between independent ( vs interdependent) self-construal scores and FCS were significant in PCC ( r = 0.317, P = 0.008), and IFG ( r = 0.291, P = 0.042), and marginally significant in MPFC (r = 0.271, P = 0.060).

Besides the marginally significant correlation between NAWM-AD and Tinetti score (p = 0.06), we observed no significant association between changes in the global diffusion indices of NAWM and Walk Time or Tinetti score.

There was also a marginally significant difference (multivariable-adjusted p = 0.06) in EQ-5D VAS scores between older and younger adults ( Table 2 ).

In addition, there was a significant main effect of reinforcement (F(1,41) = 10.50, P = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.20), such that trials paired with shock showed greater amygdala activity than trials not paired with shock, and a marginally significant main effect of condition (F(1,41) = 3.89, P = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.09), such that trials paired with social support figures showed greater amygdala activity than trials paired with strangers.

A marginally significant difference, with again lower performance for non-native participants, was also obtained for the backward digit span test, t (39.7) = −2.43, p = 0.06, and for the phonological short term memory test, t (48) = −2.55, p = 0.04.