“marginally significant”

Two-way ANOVAs revealed a main effect of reward value on felt achievement [ M high value = 5.03, M low value = 4.41; F (1, 259) = 9.40, p = 0.002, ω p 2 = 0.031] and a marginally significant main effect of reward value on competence [ M high value = 4.77, M low value = 4.43; F (1, 259) = 3.47, p = 0.063, ω p 2 = 0.009].

It showed that the three-way interaction was marginally significant ( F 1 , 50 = 3.62, p = 0.063, partial η 2 = 0.068).

When just focusing on the responses to the deviant tones, there was only a marginally significant increase in TTV in the autism group [ F (1, 49) = 3.63, p = 0.063; d = 0.52].

At the age of 12 months, LPS treatment effects on the levels of Aβ 42 and p‐tau were significant in different hippocampal layers; that is, Aβ 42 in DG‐HL and CA3‐LS [ F (2, 42) = 4.295, 4.147; p = .035, .039] and p‐tau in CA1‐RS and CA1‐PL [ F (2, 42) = 3.919, 3.614; p = .039, .048; Table 2 ], and marginally significant on the level of GFAP in CA3 [ F (2, 42) = 3.244, p = .063; Table 5 ].

For statistics anxiety, only a marginally significant association is found: statistics anxiety is negatively related to performance (β = −0.303, p = 0.063).

For private assertive consumer behavior, the main effect for time was not significant, but there was a time × self-objectification, F (1, 37) = 5.70, p = .022, η p 2 = .13), and a marginally significant time × sexual motivation interaction F (1, 37) = 3.66, p = .063, η p 2 = .09).

correlated with overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.85; P = .0017). Multivariate analysis indicated that BARD1 expression was significantly associated with distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio: 4.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-17.28; P = .0239) whereas marginally significant for disease-free survival (hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.01, P = .0630) and disease-specific survival (hazard ratio: 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-3.96; P = .0602).

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.

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.

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).

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.

unpracticed items) showed a marginally significant main effect of delay , F (3,92) = 2.51, M S E = 0.05, p = .063, η 2 = 0.08, and a main effect of item type , F (1,92) = 66.48, M S E = 0.03, p < .001, η 2 = 0.42, but no interaction between the two factors, F (3,92) < 1.

Three-way mixed ANOVA yielded only a marginally significant time × group × treatment interaction ( F (1,25) = 3.781, p = 0.063; Fig. 3 ).

The marginally significant decrease was observed in plasma putrescine levels in the DFMO-treated ( p = 0.063) and the DFMO/Sulindac-treated ( p = 0.053) aged male mouse groups ( Table S9 ). 3.2.3.

The partial effects on cognitive reflection were moderate and marginally significant, correct answers ( M DIFF = -0.7): t (37) = 1.92, p = .063, d = 0.64; intuitive answers ( M DIFF = 0.6): t (37) = -2.03, p = .050, d = 0.68, and the effect on probabilistic reasoning was small and non-significant ( M DIFF = -0.3), t (37) = 1.12, p = .272, d = 0.37.

Neither of the main effects of group nor gender on the proportion of errors corrected were significant (all F s < 0.31, p s > 0.57, η p 2 s < 0.01), however, there was a marginally significant interaction between group and gender, F (3, 132) = 2.5, p = 0.063, η p 2 < 0.054.

Results: Probiotic supplementation significantly influenced acetate titer (p=0,032) marginally significant for propionate and butyrate (p=0.063 and p=0.068, respectively) and the respondent with increasing SCFA’s metabolite are higher in probiotic group compared to the respondents in placebo group.

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

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).

In overall survival analysis, advanced age significantly predicted worse survival outcomes ( p = 0.043), whereas positive KRT1 expression showed a marginally significant predictive effect ( p = 0.063).

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].

When the AADS was parceled out, the ADS made a marginally significant contribution to Asian subjective wellbeing (Δ R 2 = .009, F = 3.517, df = 163, P = .063); to life satisfaction (Δ R 2 = .003, F = .776, df = 163, n . s .); to positive affect (Δ R 2 = .009, F = 3.517, df = 163, P = .063), suggesting a small incremental validity of the ADS over AADS on positive criteria.

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 ).

There was a marginally significant main effect of group relationship [ F (1,62) = 3.58, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.055].

Such a marker‐dependent pattern qualitatively emerged from the breakdown of AMOVAs (Table 3 ): the difference between groups of relatively pure and massively stocked populations was substantial although marginally significant for STR (9%, p = .063), while reduced for MHC‐DAB (2%, p = .069) and negligible for MHC‐ST (< 1%, p = .332).