“marginally significant”

After adding perceived organizational support to the regression analysis, the prediction effect was marginally significant ( β = −0.16, p = 0.063 in Model 2; β = −0.14, p = 0.088 in Model 3).

As illustrated in Figure 3 , there was a marginally significant main effect of Group, suggesting a trend for experts to be faster than novices overall [ F (1, 28) = 3.754, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.118].

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).

Looking at descriptive results, establishing a green office was associated with lower pre-questionnaire self-efficacy ( M established = 5.07, M not_established = 5.24), higher collective efficacy ( M established = 5.47, M not_established = 5.31), lower participatory efficacy ( M established = 4.54, M not_established = 4.88), and more volunteer time ( M established = 5.85, M not_established = 4.13) that also emerged as marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.063).

We observed a marginally significant effect of Timepoint ( F (1.62,129.94) = 3.03, p = 0.063), marginally significant main effect of Group ( F (2,80) = 2.86, p = 0.063), and significant Timepoint × Group interaction ( F (3.25,129.94) = 3.19, p = 0.023).

The LTM to test in Context A showed a marginally significant difference, t (14) = −2.02, p = 0.063, d = −0.76, suggesting a trend toward increased approach when the sipper was present in the conditioning context (Figure 8A right panel). 3.4.3.4.

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 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).

The interaction among time, stress state and regulation strategy was marginally significant [ F (2,174) = 2.802, p = 0.063, η 2 = 0.031].

sabaudus sierranevadensis ( F 1,16 = 8.22, p = 0.011), was marginally significant between A. nevadensis and B. ibericus ( F 1,15 = 4.04, p = 0.063) and between H. marginatus and B. ibericus ( F 1,15 = 3.59, p = 0.078), and was not significantly different between H. sabaudus sierranevadensis and B. ibericus ( F 1,15 = 1.63, p = 0.218).

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 ].

While warming had a marginally significant negative effect on protein depolymerization ( p = .0630), eCO 2 significantly increased amino acid consumption rates (Table 1 , Figure 2a,b ).

There was a marginally significant association between HFI and depressive symptoms, 3.64 (4) for food secure and 6.72 (5) for food insecure (p = .063).

Also, the main effect of group was marginally significant, F (1,33) = 3.7, p = .063, η g 2 = 0.04, with marginally more negative N400 amplitudes in the engineering ( M = −1.04, 95% CI [−1.5, −0.6]) than nonengineering ( M = −0.45, 95% CI [−0.9, 0.0]) students.

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 set of independent samples t -tests revealed no difference between the two groups in the calm crowd condition [ t (28) = 0.81; p = 0.43; low anxiety: M = 0.83, SD = 0.93; high anxiety: M = 1.04, SD = 0.49]; instead, in the pressing crowd condition a marginally significant difference between the two groups emerged [ t (28) = 1.59; p = 0.063; d = 0.58; low anxiety: M = 1.14, SD = 0.86; high anxiety: M = 0.73, SD = 0.51].

The additive interaction between high internalized HIV stigma and low expressive suppression was mixed, with a marginally significant RERI (RERI = 4.42, 95% CI = −0.24, 9.09; p = .0632) and a significant AP (AP = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.50, 1.13; p <.001). 4 |.

The results showed that for Arabic, the comparison between word and pseudo-word contexts is marginally significant ( p = 0.0633) and between pseudo-word and non-word contexts is highly significant ( p = 0.0019).

Separate correlation analyses for each group yielded marginally significant results for the precuneus in both groups (CS: R = 0.428, p = .0633; ASD: R = 0.452, p = .0522) and for the vMPFC only in control subjects (CS: R = 0.398, p = .0801; ASD: R = 0.289, p = .1578).

Log2-transformed, normalized counts revealed significant downregulation of POU5F1 ( OCT4 ) in patients with MM ( p = 0.0317) and marginally significant downregulation of NANOG ( p = 0.0635) compared with healthy controls.

There was a marginally significant relationship between having COVID-19-related symptoms and those who reported a history of TB vaccination (OR = 0.482, 95% CI = 0.223–1.042, p = 0.0635) ( Table 6 ).

Between 190–210 ms the DE was marginally significant in the numerical task (p = 0.0636), and it was stronger in the physical task (p = 0.0010).

In the fully adjusted model (model 3), there was a marginally significant association between perioperative infusion of PCC and the risk of postoperative venous thrombosis (OR: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.00–1.23, P = 0.0637).

the normal urothelia; however, this difference was marginally significant (P=0.0638) ( Fig. 1 ).

jararaca was marginally significant (z = -1.853, p = 0.0639).