“marginally significant”

Analyzing FRN amplitudes at electrode site FCz (Figure 2 ) using peak-to-peak measures, we found a significant main effect of expectancy, F (1, 28) = 15.77, p < 0.001, and a marginally significant main effect of valence, F (1, 28) = 3.79, p = 0.062, showing more negative amplitudes for unexpected feedback and for losses compared to expected feedback and wins.

In Mullaitivu, the percentage of households that thought their income was affected by COVID-19 and/or the associated mitigation measures decreased by 9 pp (T1: 87%, T2: 78%, p = .022), and in Matale, there was a marginally significant decrease in the percentage of households who reported effects on food availability (T1: 67%, T2: 56%, p = .062).

Intensity An LME model with random slopes showed a significant effect of Emotion [ β = 6.393 (SE = 2.364), t (351) = −2.704, p = 0.0072], a marginally significant two-way interaction between Age and Emotion [ β = 0.3916 (SE = 0.209), t (351) = −1.873, p = 0.062], a significant two-way interaction between Sex and Sentence [ β = 0.8233 (SE = 0.404), t (351) = 2.037, p = 0.0425], a three-way interaction among Sex, Emotion, and Sentence [ β = −1.447 (SE = 0.572), t (351) = −2.531, p = 0.0118], a marginally significant three-way interaction among Age, Sex, and Sentence [ β = −0.0559 (SE = 0.0297), t (347.827) = −1.879, p = 0.0611], and a four-way interaction among Age, Sex, Emotion, and Sentence [ β = 0.099 (SE = 0.042), t (351) = 2.358, p = 0.0189].

However, there was a marginally significant interaction between memory load and search difficulty on accuracy in the VWM task, where F (1, 18) = 3.96, p = 0.062, and ηp2 = 0.18.

Two further tests were marginally significant: regrowth following −1 °C and drought treatment ( P =0.062) and LDMC and regrowth following −3 °C ( P =0.072); we do not consider these tests any further.

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

Additionally, semantic processing had a marginally significant contribution [ b = 0.031, t (46) = 1.92, 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 ).

For the energy/fatigue subscale, while the coach-only group did not differ from the control group ( p = 0.136) and the two coach groups did not differ from each other ( p = 1.000), the coach + devices group did differ from the control group ( p = 0.067), but marginally significant differences were also seen for emotional well-being, where only the coach + devices group differed from control ( p = 0.062).

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).

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).

For AM trials, SR significantly reduced weights given to draw information (p=.041), and reduced weights given to odds at marginally significant levels (p=.062).

Her impaired left leg had a significant increase in hip joint ROM (5.8 ± 2.4 deg, p = 0.019) during backward walking and a marginally significant increase in knee joint ROM (9.0 ± 6.7 deg, p = 0.062) during the left side stepping.

Consumption of processed and/or fast food in a typical week was similarly reported by all groups at baseline ( P = 0.747), but increased significantly among CHV only participants (17.5%, CI: 6.3,28.7%; P = 0.002) with marginally significant differences in change between groups ( P = 0.062).

Analysis of feed samples revealed that the control diet had greater ( P = 0.027) aerobic plate counts compared to the other treatment diets and marginally significant greater ( P = 0.062) Enterobacteriaceae counts.

In particular, the DM rate was higher, marginally significant, in the high-risk sub-set of patients reaching a 24.5% compared to 16.2% of low and intermediate risk ( p = 0.062).

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

In addition, adding the non-social subscores as control variables further revealed that social motivation was associated with a marginally significant decrease in the weight granted to trustworthiness for likeability evaluations in the ASD group ( b SocMot*Trust = −0.11 ± 0.09, t (560) = −1.87, p = 0.062).

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 ).

The interaction between mind-set and goal now was marginally significant, F (1, 164) = 3.52, p = .062, ƞ p 2 = .021, but the achieved power of this analysis dropped to 47.10% due to the smaller sample size.

After model adjustment for baseline risk factors, the OR remained significant for type II DM (aOR: 2.16; CI: 1.18-3.94; P = 0.012), QRS > 120 (aOR: 2.18; CI: 1.02-4.66; P = 0.045) and marginally significant for supraventricular arrhythmias (aOR: 1.82; CI: 0.97-3.42; P = 0.062).

Average values for vimentin mRNA after LPS treatment were higher in both VAD and VAA groups, consistent with the protein staining results shown in Figure 5 g, although this was marginally significant ( P = 0.062) only in the VAA group.

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 ].

Finally, phenotypic plasticity in the hatching fraction, as measured by PI HF from joint regression analysis, showed marginally significant differences among populations ( F 5,31 = 2.374, p = 0.062; Figure 3 ) and considerable variation among clones (ranging from −0.268 in ATA250 to 5.013 in ATA210; see Appendix S1 : Figure S2 for within‐population variability).