For the forgetting rate of 1 day, ANOVA with feedback type and initial correctness as factors showed a significant effect of feedback type, F (2.42, 53.14) = 3.09, p = .045, η p 2 = .12, and a marginally significant interaction, F (2.30, 50.65) = 2.81, p = .062, η p 2 = .11.
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
In Model 3, SMSPS Positivity was marginally significant, B = 0.253, SE = 0.135, β = 0.122, t = 1.876, p = 0.062, while anxiety remained a significant positive predictor, B = 0.154, SE = 0.025, β = 0.393, t = 6.080, p < 0.001.
Prior mental health diagnosis, being marginally significant in the multiple regression model ( p = 0.062), was associated with higher odds of readmission.
In the total population, patients with Ki67 ≥14% had marginally significant shorter PFS than those with Ki67 <14% [6.0 vs. 10.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95–3.96; P=0.062; Figure 1A ].
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 skin & blood clock provides marginally significant evidence (p=0.062) that fibroblasts from boys with classic HGPS are epigenetically older than those from girls with classic HGPS, but this gender effect is not apparent when classic and non-classic HGPS samples are pooled for analyses ( Supplementary Figure 10 ).
The main effect of service provider was marginally significant, p = 0.062).
Warming had a marginally significant effect on A n ( P = 0.062; Table 2 ), decreasing rates by 4.9, 8.9 and 22 % in the low, medium and high warming plots, respectively, compared with ambient ( Fig. 2 ; Table 2 ).
The incidences of grade ≥ 2 TRPAE were 51.1 % in high MLD group and 43.9 % in low MLD group with marginally significant difference ( P = 0.062, Fig. 1B ).
Our findings demonstrate that women aged 70 and older are 48.0% less likely to undergo surgery, although this observation was marginally significant (AOR: 0.52, [95% CI: 0.26–1.03], p = 0.062).
The interaction effect of mask type and stimulus type was marginally significant [ F (2, 62) = 2.91, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.07].
The ratio of preserved axons was 0.88 ± 0.16 and 0.68 ± 0.17 in the 2-week 1.0 mg/kg etanercept-treated group and PBS-treated group, respectively, with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.062) (Table 1 ).
The same effect in the single expression condition was marginally significant, Ζ = −1.87, p = 0.062.
We merely observed a marginally significant effect of target position, with slower reactions to left (863 ms) than to right targets (641 ms; F (1,9) = 4.53, p = 0.062, ƞ 2 = 0.335).
Variance of cortisone was not significantly explained by the group contrasts RCU vs DCU (F (1,136) = 1.01, P = .317, η 2 = 0.007), but a marginally significant difference was found for the contrast controls vs RCU (F (1,136) = 3.53, P = .062, η 2 = 0.025).
The changes in regression coefficients were significant in fat percentage ( p = 0.047) and marginally significant in Matsuda ( p = 0.062).
These trends were marginally significant (Fischer’s exact test, p = 0.062; Figure 3 ).
Furthermore, a marginally significant relationship was observed between Gln levels and pgACC-aMCC connectivity ( r = 0.48, p = 0.062, Fig. 5 B).
Differences in acoustic diversity among periods were statistically significant when measured as species richness (ANOVA, F 3,12 = 5.86, p = 0.010) and marginally significant when measured by Gini–Simpson index (ANOVA, F 3,12 = 3.21, p = 0.062).
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)].
In the HR group, a marginally significant trend in the same direction was detected, r (43) = − 0.28, p = 0.062.
The interaction between sex appeal and product type was marginally significant [ F (1, 20) = 3.901, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.163].
The drop at K = 15 was not statistically significant at α = 0.05 for the MH‐Index; however, the sample size ( n = 15) was small and the difference was marginally significant ( p = .062).
In 2017, it similarly led to a marginally significant increase in cellulose paper mass loss (β = 23.194, P = .062 by LMM; Fig. 3A ).
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 ).