“marginally significant”

According to simple effect contrasts, students in the walkable community achieved 1.86 more minutes of MVPA than students in the less walkable community, a marginally significant difference ( p = .061).

In individuals without diabetes, these associations were marginally significant after adjustment (all-cause mortality: HR = 1.499, 95% CI 0.982–2.288, p = 0.061; cardiovascular mortality: HR = 1.725, 95% CI 0.872–3.414, p = 0.117) (Fig. 6 , Supplementary Tables 4 and 5).

With respect to the probe trial, a marginally significant effect of heterogeneity was observed (Q (5) = 10.6, p = .061), contributing for 53.7% (I 2 ) of the variance in this model.

Across the two offline intervals, there was a marginally significant trend for a time point effect ( F (2,52) = 2.96, P = 0.061, ɳ 2 = 0.10) but a significant effect of group ( F (1,26) = 4.80, P = 0.038, ɳ 2 = 0.16).

As for the C1-P4 pair, the increases in synchrony from the baselines were marginally significant in both conditions ( z = 2.16 and p = 0.061, z = 2.08 and p = 0.074, respectively; Bonferroni corrected).

Having previous health education regarding DS was associated with higher a MHS (2.27 units higher); however, the relationship is marginally significant (p = 0.061).

However, for the clipped individuals, we observed a marginally significant decrease in stomatal ratio in both species, S. etonia (0.510 ± 0.005 vs. 0.484 ± 0.010; P = 0.061, Figure 3A ) and S. repens (0.494 ± 0.0083 vs. 0.471 ± 0.0056; P = 0.059, Figure 3B ).

Congruent) mixed ANOVA of the mean RTs in global diagnostic trials revealed a marginally significant interaction between Experiment, PC, and Congruency, F (1,59) = 3.64, p = .061, η 2 g = .002.

With affect intensity measures entered into Model 3b, trait emotional intelligence remained a marginally significant predictor of fear ( B = −0.31; CI = [−0.63; 0.01]; p = .061).

There was a marginally significant negative correlation between these two measures over the midcentral region ( r s = .335, p = .061), indicating that the reduction in reported memory intrusions was reflected in a reduction in the NSW.

In partial support of the first hypothesis, the results of the mixed-effects model indicated a marginally significant difference between groups at posttest ( p = .061; see Table 5 ).

Sensitivity analysis in an anatomically specified subgroup consisting of datasets examining the mPFC demonstrated marginally significant reduction of NAA ( P =0.061).

Tau pathway For phosphorylated Tau (pTau), the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a marginally significant overall group effect (H = 5.59, p = 0.061).

The predicted mean change was larger than the empirical change across participants on a marginally significant level ( T (9) = −2.14, p = 0.061), despite the small sample (see Figure 3b ).

In the Success condition, 6 year-olds’ performance was in the predicted direction but did not reach significance (61.67% chose the no-surprise student, Z = 1.347, p = .248), 7 year-olds’ performance was marginally significant (68.33%, Z = 2.043, p = .061), and 8 year-olds’ performance was significant (75%, Z = 2.88, p = .006).

There were significant differences between the groups for all these measures, except for total reading time, which was marginally significant (faster for deaf signers; p = 0.061).

3b ) and marginally significant difference in the 5th rank subject (χ 2 = 5.60, p = 0.061; Fig. 3b ).

The association between gender was marginally significant (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.98–3.03, p = 0.061).

The interaction between emotion and category was marginally significant (F(4,116) = 2.33, p = .061, η 2 = .08).

A marginally significant trend for a main effect of polysubstance dependence on PG was also observed (β = 1.42, p = 0.061).

Number of fixations (NF) The analysis of the number of fixations (NF) revealed that the main effect of illuminance was marginally significant ( M [1] = 0.172, M [2] = 0.247, M [3] = 0.189, F (2, 25) = 3.127, p = 0.061).

Furthermore, central to our hypothesis, a marginally significant Load × Group interaction effect was found, F (2, 27) = 3.1, p = 0.061 (see Figure 3 ).

The cumulative survival rates in the frailty group were lower than those in the non-frailty group, although the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.061).

The difference in correlations between non-users and users was marginally significant, Z = 1.55, P = 0.061 ( Figure 5a ).

The interaction effect was marginally significant, F (1,33) = 3.76, p = 0.061.