“marginally significant”

In our sampled population, our female participants had marginally significant higher sensitivity than men in detecting happy faces ( p = .063), but not in angry or yawning faces.

There was a marginally significant difference between the no price and price $30 conditions (50% vs. 57%, χ2(1) = 3.44, p = 0.063).

However, the results in model 1 suggested that participants in overweight group had a decreased risk of low HGS compared to normal weight individuals (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56–0.81), while the obesity group showed a marginally significant decreased risk (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58–1.01, p = 0.063).

However, patients with a higher initial degree of LD tended to show improvement in LD after completion of the treatment sessions ( p =0.054), and the relationships between absence of sleep disturbance and AN as well as EL were also marginally significant ( p =0.063 for both comparisons).

The only factor that showed marginally significant difference between groups was internalizing behavior problems (p = .063).

There was also a greater marginally significant satisfaction in women on the items “treatment logic” ( t (86) = 1.88, p = .063; d = 0.47) and “recommending to others” ( t (86) = 1.94, p = .055; d = 0.49).

In the GEE analysis ( Supplementary Table S2 ), although the linear effect of time was marginally significant (estimate = 0.509, p = 0.063), the quadratic time term (Day 2 ) remained significantly negative (estimate = −0.017, p = 0.017), indicating a nonlinear trend in glycemic variability.

There was no significant main effect of ASD likelihood status on awakenings (Waldχ 2 = 1.116, p = 0.291), but there was a significant interaction between visit and ASD likelihood status (Waldχ 2 = 10.777, p = 0.005); post-hoc tests revealed no significant group difference in awakenings at 5 months (Waldχ 2 = 1.773, p = 0.183), but a significant difference at 10 months with infants at EL waking more often (Waldχ 2 = 5.068, p = 0.024), and a marginally significant difference, in the same direction, at 14 months (Waldχ 2 = 3.465, p = 0.063).

Attempts A Kruskal-Wallis test, used to explore whether there was a difference among participant groups in how many Attempts they mentioned, was marginally significant, H (2) = 5.525, p = 0.063.

While there was no significant difference in seropositivity in the overall sample ( P = .136), the difference between forestry workers and healthcare/office workers was marginally significant ( P = .063).

Subjective Feelings of Sadness The 3 (time: at baseline, after rumination induction, after mood induction) × 3 (group: anger group, joy group, neutral mood group) repeated measures ANOVA of sadness indicated that the main effect of time was significant [ F (2,174) = 62.614, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.419], the main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (2,87) = 2.847, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.061], the interaction between time and group was significant [ F (4,174) = 2.630, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.057].

Longitudinally, the model also showed an interactive effect of LO and RO ( b = 0.06, SE = 0.02, p = .006), and a marginally significant main effect of partner LO ( b = -0.05, SE = 0.03, p = .063).

When comparing between the two groups, the improvement in scores was higher in the hands-on training group than the observational training group, and this was marginally significant (p=0.063).

In the follow‐up test, there was a marginally significant effect in the high ( t (14) = 2.022, p = 0.063, Cohen ′ s d = 0.522), but not in the low ( t (14) = 0.137, p = 0.893) SF conditions.

In LUM condition, one-tailed one-sample t -test showed that the accuracies were significantly above chance (25%) when the classifiers were trained on the neural responses to LSF scenes in PPA and OPA (PPA: t (26) = 3.940, p < 0.001; OPA: t (26) = 1.981, p = 0.029), and marginally significant in RSC ( t (24) = 1.584, p = 0.063).

The interaction between region and number approached significance, F (1, 27) = 2.62, p = 0.082, η 2 p = 0.089 and further analyses yielded a marginally significant difference between plural and singular attractors in the centroparietal region, t (27) = 1.94, p = 0.063, and a significant difference in the parieto-occipital region, t (27) = 2.32, p = 0.028, with plural attractors showing an increased amplitude when compared to singular attractors.

We found no significant differences in the number of calls given to vivid or anaesthetized intruders (LMM: F 1,66 = 0.83, p = 0.366), and marginally significant differences in the latency to start calling (LMM: F 1,25 = 3.8, p = 0.063).

However, we can consider that the result was marginally significant for females ( P = 0.063; Table 2 ), with their body sizes increasing slightly with latitude, which was determinant in creating the latitudinal cline in SSD.

Emotional support of mothers was also found to be marginally significant (OR=2.25, p value=0.063) and those with a lack of emotional support were at greater odds of developing symptoms of depression.

As exhibited in Figure 6 , the median OS of patients with GSTP1H and patients with GSTP1L was 18.0 months and 20.0 months, respectively. And the difference had a trend for marginally significant (χ 2 = 3.445, P = .063).

Higher perceived COVID-19 risk predicted greater depressive symptoms ( p < 0.001), particularly among adults with histories of childhood trauma, though this effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.063).

A marginally significant reduction in organ failure was observed with LR compared to NS (OR = 0.563, 95% CI: 0.307–1.031; p = 0.063), suggesting a potential protective effect in acute pancreatitis patients.

The MANOVA did not yield a significant interaction ( F [4,25]=.296, p =.878) but returned a significant effect of Group ( F [4,25]=2.942, p =.04) and a marginally significant effect of Time ( F [4,25]=2.566, p =.063).

Compared to the Col-0 wildtype, the frd3-3 mutant showed a significant reduction of root growth in response to high Zn according to the 2-way ANOVA ( p < 0.001) while the genotype x treatment interaction was marginally significant for frd3-7 ( p = 0.063) (Fig. 1d, e , Supplementary Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 2 and 3 ).

After false discovery rate correction for performing 6 tests (for momentary valence, calmness, anxiety, rumination, stress, and energetic arousal) in total, all results remain marginally significant at P = 0.063.