“marginally significant”

Exploratory analysis of ERP latency The repeated-measures ANOVA with factors age (1, 2, and 3 years) and time (13 time windows of 100 ms each, ranging from 0−1300 ms) revealed a significant main effect of age (F = 4.85, p = 0.01), a significant main effect of time (F = 8.68, p < 0.001), and a marginally significant age*time interaction (F = 1.46, p = 0.063).

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).

We retained two RDA models (out of 8) for statistical significance: the model using sea surface predictors was marginally significant at the full model level (ANOVA, p = 0.063) and for the first axis (ANOVA, p = 0.052), and the model using temperature and current velocity predictors (at sea surface or near-bottom) was significant at the full model level (ANOVA, p = 0.034) and for the first axis (ANOVA, p = 0.035).

This increase was statistically significant in the overall sample (coefficient = 0.600, p = 0.003) and marginally significant in the KMC sample (coefficient = 0.616, p = 0.063).

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

Another SNP in CHRNA3 , rs938682T/C, showed a marginally significant association for variant genotypes (TC/CC) compared with the wild-type genotype (TT), with an OR = 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45–1.02; p = 0.063) in the dominant model as the fitting model.

Prophylactic cranial irradiation appeared to be associated with a better overall survival, but the difference is marginally significant (P=0.063).

There was a marginally significant main effect for prior research experience ( F (1, 63) = 3.583, p = 0.063), a nonsignificant main effect for year in school ( F (1, 63) = 0.525, p = 0.594), and no significant interaction between the effects of research experience and year in school ( F (2, 63) = 0.229, p = 0.796).

On multivariate analysis, a total dose ≥63 Gy, a single site of metastatic disease, and undergoing ≥4 cycles of chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors for better OS ( P = 0.007, P = 0.014, and P = 0.038, respectively); radiotherapy involving metastatic sites was a marginally significant prognostic factor ( P = 0.063).

IOP elevation occurred more frequently in the refixation group than in the exchange group, but the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.063).

Declines in HR and SDNN for women showed marginally significant differences in the rate of change across age groups ( P =0.063 and P =0.060) (Table 3 ).

In addition, in all five datasets (all 81 organisms, eukaryotes, animals, and Viridiplantae), the correlation between the number of cell types and the number of protein families remained significant or marginally significant after controlling for genome size (all 81 organisms: ρ = 0.209, P = 0.063; eukaryotes: ρ = 0.434, P = 0.0006; animals: ρ = 0.337, P = 0.100; Viridiplantae: ρ = 0.675, P = 0.011), the number of genes (all 81 organisms: ρ = 0.541, P = 2.19 × 10 −7 ; eukaryotes: ρ = 0.681, P = 2.99 × 10 −9 ; animals:

Finally, TBARS (thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances) levels, indicative of lipid peroxidation, did not exhibit a different pattern in response to HT, although a marginally significant time effect was observed ( p = 0.063; Figure 2 c).

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).

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant group × time interaction for “seeking social support” ( F =2.784, p =0.063).

We noticed though, a marginally significant correlation (statistical trend) with liver steatosis ( p =0.063) and IMAT ( p =0.059).

those who had not (17 participants) correctly indicated the frequent distractor region, in a group × distractor condition analysis of variance (ANOVA), revealed [besides a significant distractor condition main effect: F (1.37,31.52) = 38.12, p < 0.001; Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected values] a marginally significant interaction, F (1.37,31.52) = 2.38, p = 0.063 (Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected values).

This main effect was significant for the PI-II , PR-2 and PR-5 genes ( p ≤ 0.040) and marginally significant also for PI-I ( p = 0.063).

Looking at the interaction effects, adding the product of L2 and L5 (L2×L5) resulted in a marginally significant increase in the proportion of the variance explained compared with the final (additive) model (Nagelkerke R 2 =0.064, p=0.063).

The day 3 embryo score demonstrated a marginally significant association ( B = 0.275; P = .063; OR = 1.316; 95% CI: 0.986–1.758), suggesting a potential link that warrants further investigation (Table 5 ).

The Chi-square test revealed significant association between presence of hearing loss and abnormal result on behavioural balance assessment tests [ χ 2 (1) = 4.82, p = 0.028] and marginally significant association between presence of hearing loss and abnormal result on objective vestibular assessment [ χ 2 (1) = 3.45, p = 0.063].

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).

001, d = 1.18) and marginally significant higher on IOS ( t (53.92) = 1.90, p = 0.063, d = 0.46) than native Dutch.

ERP Results In the 300–500 ms time window, statistical analysis of the ERP response to polysemous targets with three levels of Condition showed a marginally significant effect of Condition [ F (2,58) = 2.89, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.091] in the midline electrode groups with no significant interaction with the Posteriority factor.

The ANOVA on the data from the iambic condition yielded a marginally significant effect of Congruence, F (1,18) = 3.936, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.179, indicating a tendency of congruent items to evoke more negative potentials.