“marginally significant”

F4 disorders increased from 9.8% in Phase 1 to 21.6% in Phase 2, with a marginally significant P value (P = 0.062; Figure S4 ).

A mixed effect logistic regression, predicting the likelihood of making this type of error (1, 0) by condition, controlling for time point and problem type revealed that this difference was marginally significant: Children in the action condition made more adding-the-first-two-numbers errors than children in the gesture condition [χ 2 (1) = 3.50, p = 0.062].

Mortality was lower among patients receiving intervention (38.61%) compared to those not receiving intervention (57.14%), with a marginally significant difference (χ 2 = 5.55, p = 0.062).

In separate analyses, this interaction effect was particularly significant in women ( P = 0.010), whereas its significance in patients with diabetes was marginally significant ( P = 0.062).

The relative importance of predation risk was greater in Copper than No Copper treatments (0.87 ± 0.19 and 0.50 ± 0.06, respectively; mean ± SEM)–though this comparison was marginally significant at α = 0.05 (two sample t-test, t 4.80 = -1.86, p = 0.062).

Moreover, lower right ventricular fractional area change (RV FAC) exhibited a marginally significant association with recurrence (OR: 0.927, p = 0.062).

The same effect in the single expression condition was marginally significant, Ζ = −1.87, p = 0.062.

Notably, ‘routine treatment’ (23 trials) and ‘comfort group settings’ (27 trials) showed marginally significant trends (interaction p=0.062 and 0.076, respectively), suggesting these factors might contribute to between-study heterogeneity.

In boys, the interaction was marginally significant in predicting parent-reported physical aggression ( t 210 = 1.842, p = .062).

LV mass increased across tertiles with a marginally significant P = .062.

This was reflected by marginally significant differences ( p = 0.062) in the area under the curve ( Figure 1M ).

Of the 2-gene modules, only { Fmo2, 1200016E24Rik } was marginally significant ( M = 10.7; P = 0.062), although others were often components of larger modules that were statistically significant (Additional File 6 ).

The RMANOVA for the LPP component revealed a significant main effect between the go/no-go trials (F = 97.542, p < 0.001), a marginally significant main effect between groups (F = 2.943, p = 0.062), a significant interaction effect between low-/high-calorie food and go/no-go conditions (F = 4.099, p < 0.048), and a significant interaction effect between the go/no-go trials and the three groups (F = 3.685, p = 0.032).

For the pointed script bi-morphemic words were read more accurately than mono-morphemic words [significant in 5th grade ( t (28) = 2.544, p = 0.017) and marginally significant in 2nd grade ( t (26) = 1.951, p = 0.062)].

There was a marginally significant difference among the three methods ( p = 0.062 by Friedman test).

The phase x win potential interaction for the pre-feedback probes was now marginally significant, F (1, 44) = 3.67, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.077.

In the HR group, a marginally significant trend in the same direction was detected, r (43) = − 0.28, p = 0.062.

Results revealed main effects for ToM, F (1,54) = 45.46, p < .001, η p 2 = .46, and AL, F (1,54) = 251.31, p < .001, η p 2 = .82, as well as a marginally significant interaction, F (1,54) = 3.65, p = .062, η p 2 = .06.

Among males ( n = 738), the mediation effect was significant ( ACME = 7.21, 95 % CI [0.41, 15.22], p = 0.036), with a non-significant direct effect and a marginally significant total effect ( p = 0.062).

Besides, a marginally significant effect was revealed for IL- 6 when trials had good (WMD: − 0.59 pg/mL; 95% CI: − 1.22 to 0.03; P = 0.062) and fair methodological quality (WMD: − 0.14 pg/mL; 95% CI: − 0.29 to 0.01; P = 0.060).

However, no significant difference was found using pairwise comparisons (multiple comparisons, p > 0.050), except for a marginally significant difference between the treatments of 107 and 120 mg SPM L −1 (multiple comparisons, p = 0.062) ( Fig. 4A ).

Results The mean tibial torsion angle significantly decreased in both groups compared to preoperative values, with reductions of − 3.8° in the PT-HTO group and − 1.4° in the DT-HTO group, with a marginally significant difference between the groups ( p = 0.062).

Finally, three out of four scales were significant predictors of the satisfaction with time use item, with the remaining self-congruence scale a marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.062).

Meanwhile, the difference between nR0 and nR(un) was significant in pT1 (RFS, 5‐year rate: 92.0% versus 74.1%, p < 0.001; OS, 5‐year rate: 92.6% versus 77.7%, p < 0.001) and marginally significant in pT2 disease (RFS, 5‐year rate: 70.5% versus 59.4%, p = 0.062; OS, 5‐year rate: 72.0% versus 62.3%, p = 0.077) (supplementary material, Figure S1E,F ).

The interaction of response relation and distractor relation was marginally significant, F (1, 40) = 3.68, p =.062, η p 2 = 0.08, showing that when both the response and distractor repeated, less errors were made than when only one of them repeated.