“marginally significant”

Using Pillai’s trace, the multivariate statistics revealed a main effect of WTC on cognitive functioning, F (3,31) = 3.32, p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.24, as well as a marginally significant interaction between WTC and leisure time activity, F (3,31) = 2.79, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.21, but no main effect of leisure-time activity, F (3,31) = 1.48, p = 0.24, η 2 = 0.13, and voluntariness in WTC, F (3,31) = 2.03, p = 0.13, η 2 = 0.16.

Female PD patients had an average of 2.6 ng/mL higher OCN levels than female controls, while male PD patients had 0.43 ng/mL lower levels than male controls; the interaction term was marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

A similar but non-significant trend was observed for the rule following scale [ F (2, 77) = 1.79, p = 0.17], however, the linear contrast analysis did show a marginally significant linearity for this trend F (1, 77) = 3.59, p = 0.06.

There was also a marginally significant variation in copper intake ( P =0.06).

The single cohort shows a marginally significant increase over the control group with a mean increase of 0.28 (F(1, 200) = 3.53, p = 0.06) and effect size d = 0.32.

The difference between the two measurements was marginally significant with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, Z = − 1.87, p = 0.06.

Self-control was also a marginally significant predictor, F (1,58) = 3.62, p = .06, η 2 = .06.

Finally, the two-way interaction between self-control and heuristics was marginally significant, F (2, 147) = 2.76, p = .06, η 2 = .04 ( Figure 2 ).

In general, women attributed greater importance to each motivation than did men, with some exceptions: men and women rated wanting both to improve health and look good for a significant other similarly (p = .11 and .42, respectively), and men assigned greater importance to attracting a significant other—although this difference was marginally significant (3.19 vs. 2.70, p = .06).

undulatus females when described by the PC spectral analysis ( figure 5 ), significantly so in terms of brightness (Tukey post hoc : p < 0.001) and marginally significant in terms of UV reflectance (Tukey post hoc : p = 0.06).

The difference between trials following a nongamble and trials following a gambled win was marginally significant (two-tailed p = .06; one-tailed: p = .03).

We detected 14 (37.8%) lincRNA/mRNA pairs with the H2H type, which shows marginally significant over-representation ( p = 0.06, one-sided Binomial test) relative to the global distribution.

While no significant interaction was detected for total AAs ( p = 0.381), interaction trends emerged for specific categories: essential AAs (EPAA) approached significance ( p = 0.116), and non‐proteinogenic AAs showed a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.060).

34 had a marginally significant difference between the US and LM group ( p = 0.06).

Two markers from the dietary recall were significant predictors: the lagged number of kilocalories (marginally significant at p = 0.06) and the contemporaneous percent calories from carbohydrates.

One of the regression models identified a marginally significant ( P = 0.06) inverse association between depressive symptoms and PA.

The effect of rhythm modality was marginally significant, F (1, 19) = 3.93, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.17 (Bayes factor 2.3: 1 in favor of the effect), with a trend of somewhat greater d’ for A than for AV.

The test for interaction between treatment and HLA-A*02 status was marginally significant ( P = .06).

In a multivariate model, percentage change in tumor size at the first assessment was a marginally significant positive predictor for PFS ( P = .06).

The bright areas and brightest areas (Cirrocumulus) With the bright areas as the predictor and the brightest areas (Cirrocumulus) as the outcome, there was a marginally significant decrease of 4% ( P = 0.06) from β self = 0.680 ( P = 10 –159 ) in Model 1 to β ′ self = 0.653 ( P = 10 –109 ) in Model 3 ( P = 0.06), while there was a decrease of 85% ( P = 10 –25 ) from β co-twin = 0.378 ( P = 10 –22 ) in Model 2 to β ′ co-twin = 0.058 ( P = 0.07) in Model 3 of 85% ( P = 10 –25 ).

In terms of the occurrence of mixed lesions, the risk was 11.86 times higher in the RA group than in the C group, and there were marginally significant odds for the AS group (OR = 8.93, 95% CI = 0.91–87.27, p = 0.060) compared to the C group.

There was a marginally significant trend towards increasing HRV in the propranolol group ( F 1,216.8 = 3.72, P = 0.06).

Within the generalized estimating equations model, marginally significant time × group interaction effects were found in the FACT-B scores (quality of life) from T0 to T2 ( p = 0.06; see Table 1 ).

Calculated p -values for the interaction between time and redemption status were significant for the coordination of care subscale ( p = 0.02) and total P3C score ( p = 0.01), and marginally significant for the communication subscale ( p = 0.06).

The correlation coefficient for the Dutch elderly population was marginally significant (ρ = -0.40, p-value = 0.06).