“marginally significant”

In contrast, self-leadership demonstrated significant variation according to educational level ( F (2, 343) = 5.125, p = 0.006; η 2 = 0.0290) with a small to medium effect size and marginally significant variation by position ( F (2, 343) = 2.762, p = 0.065; η 2 = 0.016) with a small effect size.

testaceus ( n = 20) were marginally significant overall ( p = 0.065), but there were no significant differences among treatments.

The interaction between peripheral cueing × laterality was marginally significant, F (1,19) = 3.84, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.17.

Welch two-sample t-tests showed that the age-difference was marginally significant for orientations around vertical ( t (37) = −1.9, p = 0.065; older: M = 10.8, SD = 2; younger: M = 9.7, SD = 2) but not for orientations around horizontal ( t (39) = 0.02, p = 0.98; older: M = 10.2, SD = 2; younger: M = 10.3, SD = 3).

However, a marginally significant difference was found for the behavioral inhibition scores, with the amusia group having a slightly lower score than controls ( t = − 1.87, p = 0.065) (Table 2 ).

DPD and DST show a marginally significant association with DST ( p = 0.065). 3.4.

SZ participants There was a main effect of Problem Type, such that living problems were solved more accurately than non-living problems F (1,12) = 7.89, p < 0.01, as evident in Figure 2B , and a marginally significant effect of relation (one-relation more accurate than two-relation problems) F (1,12) = 4.14, p = 0.065.

A mixed effects logistic regression analysis of gesture type as a function of group revealed a marginally significant effect of group (ß = −1.256, p = 0.065), with L2 signers' producing numerically more gestures about figure than path-only gestures (67% vs. 33%, SD = 26) compared to the non-signers (46% vs. 54% SD = 28).

Of these, channels 1, 3, and 4 in the LH formed a statistically significant spatial cluster ( P = 0.016), while channels 14 and 17 formed a marginally significant cluster in RH ( P = 0.065).

The number of correct markings to the six statements about symptoms of inadequate fluid intake showed a not significant time effect (F(2,288) = 1.480, p = 0.229, η 2 p = 0.01) and a marginally significant Time × Group interaction with a small effect (F(2,288) = 2.756, p = 0.065, η 2 p = 0.02).

Food restriction experiment Regarding the food restriction experiment, the effect of tail group on the successive measurements of body length during one month was marginally significant (GLMM of SVL at days 0, 10, 20 and 30 with tail group, sex and time as fixed factors and mother as a random factor: F 1,51 = 3.552, p = 0.065).

The interaction itself was marginally significant ( p = 0.065); computing the Johnson–Neyman interval (Johnson and Fay 1950 ) indicates that above the age of 42.21 years, the effect of sex on age is significant: males have a steeper slope than females after this age. 4.

The general linear model of the improvement in fluency was marginally significant, F (5, 84) = 2.17, p = .065, η p 2 = .114, power = .72.

Only a marginally significant main effect of age group, F (2, 108) = 2.8, p = .065, η 2 = .047 was found.

In the analysis separating by sex, similar to what we observed for Trust, a marginally significant relationship is again observed only in the male subjects (OT: p<0.065; OT quadratic: p<0.065), but not in female subjects (OT: p<0.210; OT quadratic: p<0.240).

This was partially confirmed by the existence of a negative but marginally significant relationship between individual body size and the mean predicted dietary contribution of pigeons (Spearman correlation, r = −0.60, P = 0.065, n = 14).

The inclusion of a warming by measurement year interaction for R 10 resulted in small (0.02 μmol m −2 s −1 ) and marginally significant decrease in R 10 during the second year of warming (p = 0.065, Table S7 ).

In Dianatkhah et al.’s study, the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay were shorter in patients who received melatonin in comparison with the control group, but this difference was statistically not significant for the length of ICU stay and marginally significant for the duration of mechanical ventilation ( P = 0.065) [ 17 ].

For the ratings of empathic distress, there was a marginally significant emotion effect, F (1, 124) = 3.47, p = .065, η p 2 = .027, indicating a tendency of increased distress for the fearful video clips (mean = 5.03, sd = 1.47) compared to sad clips (mean = 4.84, sd = 1.30).

Validation results Using the 268 parcellation scheme, we found that 5 of the 9 subnetworks and the whole‐brain (all) network were significantly heritable, whereas the default mode network showed marginally significant heritability ( h SNP 2 = 0.062, SE = 0.037, p = .065, corrected; Figure 3 ).

Sex was marginally significant in its association with exam performance, F (1, 334) = 3.55, p = 0.065, β = −0.10, 95% CI = [−0.44, 0.01], indicating that females tended to score higher on the exam than males.

There was a marginally significant main effect of cueing, (F(1,19) = 3.844, p = .065, , due to overall larger P1s when targets were uncued.

The main effect of Language was marginally significant (F(1,624) = 3.414, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.005), as the slopes for Japanese and Dutch tended to differ overall.

The main effect of Standard Order was marginally significant, F (1, 15) = 3.96, p = 0.065, showing a trend toward a larger dilation when S2 was the modulated stimulus, just as we observed in Experiment 1.

Additionally, the negative interaction effect of psychological demands with PSC was significant for five items (Q2–Q6) ( β = −0.055 to −0.043, p = 0.008 to 0.041) and marginally significant for nervousness (Q1) ( β = −0.039, p = 0.065).