“marginally significant”

The Code Switch effect (switches are more positive than non-switches) was marginally significant ( p = 0.065) in the absence of a semantic violation and not significant in the presence of one ( p = 0.275).

One of the ancestry components was marginally significant too in the non-smoker summary score (p=0.065).

However, the analysis of villus height of jejunum showed a marginally significant difference between two groups ( P =0.065).

At SJER, bacterial richness exhibited a similar, marginally significant, trend ( p = 0.065).

A two-way within-subjects ANOVA on the signal changes in the superior IPS revealed a marginally significant interaction between the task (image-based, material-based, vs. color-based) and set size (2, 4, vs. 6), F (4, 68) = 2.33, p = .065, which indicated that the effect of set size was significant in the color-based change detection task, F (2, 16) = 5.17, p = .019, but not in the image-based and material-based tasks, F (2, 16) = 1.93, p = .178 and F (2, 16) = 0.15, p = .862, respectively.

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.

Glycemic indices The change in HbA1c was marginally significant between the two groups (MD: −0.65%, 95% CI: −1.40 to 0.09, p = .065).

When the measurements were mutually adjusted for each other, BMI remained to be a significant predictor of prediabetes in both sexes ( P <0.05), and marginally significant predictor of diabetes in men ( P =0.065) but not in women.

The difference in the response rate between the two groups was marginally significant ( z = 1.85, p = 0.065), with a positive (favouring active treatment) overall effect size OR = 1.525 (95% CI 0.975–2.385) and no evidence suggesting heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0.0%, Q = 10.84, p = 0.457).

However, marginally significant p-values in knowledge and perceived severity suggested a difference between groups believing that alcohol consumption favors students' school performance ( P = 0.065) and how serious students' alcohol consumption is during weekends ( P = 0.093), respectively.

According to the result of Spearman’s partial rank correlational analysis, using higher rate of words related to important others showed marginally significant association with reduction in purge behaviours (Spearman r p = 0.42, p = 0.065).

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

While attenuation of the ASR during presentation of the CS+, relative to the CS- (i.e., CS- > CS+), was marginally significant after DC ( p = .065; d z = 0.24), this was not the case for the difference observed after TC which showed the opposite pattern ( p = .104, d z = -0.23).

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).

At the F3 channel, gamma power exhibited a monotonic pattern (i.e., decrease<maintain<increase) with a significant difference between the decrease and maintain conditions (paired t -test: t (19) = 2.53; p <0.05) and a marginally significant difference between the maintain and increase conditions, t (19) = 2.19, p = 0.065.

The median of the TCI decreased from 0.3 to 0.2, which was a marginally significant decrease ( p = 0.065).

The analysis of percentage errors showed a marginally significant main effect of spatial correspondence F (1,46) = 3.58, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.07 that interacted significantly with instruction F (1,46) = 4.40, p = 0.041, η p 2 = 0.09.

Condition had a significant effect, B = −0.96, SE = 0.45, B(Exp ) = 0.38, p = 0.034, locus of control had a marginally significant effect, B = 0.72, SE = 0.39, B(Exp) = 2.05, p = 0.065, and the difference score had no significant effect, B = −0.25, SE = 0.40, B(Exp) = 0.78, p = 0.530.

As shown in Table 2 (see full results in Tables S2 through S6 ), greater distribution entropy showed marginally significant trends of associations with a slower decline in episodic memory (Model A: β [SE]=0.017 [0.009], P =0.065), as well as statistically significant associations with a slower decline in semantic memory (Model C: β [SE]=0.026 [0.012], P =0.031).

In contrast, the direct path from CRP to chronic fatigue became marginally significant (effect = 0.083, P = 0.065) after including the mediators, indicating that the influence of early inflammation is predominantly mediated through acute fatigue and its downstream effect on brain network integrity ( Fig. 5 D– Supplementary Table 3 ). 4 Discussion To our knowledge, we conducted the first investigation into the neurobiological mechanisms underlying the onset and progression of post-COVID fatigue within a large-scale longitudinal cohort.

Finally, there was a marginally significant interaction of Hemisphere with Age group, F (1, 44) = 3.58, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.08; the difference between the N1 latency in the left compared with the right hemisphere seemed slightly larger for adults, M = 21, SD = 33, t (31.36) = 1.99, p = 0.056, compared with children ( M = 7, SD = 14).

All seven PSQI components were significantly associated with depression, anxiety, and stress (P<0.05), except for sleep duration and stress, as well as sleep duration and depression, which had a marginally significant association (P=0.065).

The main effect of Threat was not significant ( P = .125) and the interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 70) = 3.52, MSE = 0.01, P = .065, η p 2 = .048, with the false alarm rate for inanimate nonthreatening items being the lowest of the four item types.

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).

There was a significant trial type effect ( F = 6.0, df = 2, p = 0.003), as well as win stay/lose shift by group interaction ( F = 8.40, df = 1.2, p < 0.001), a win stay/lose shift by trial type interaction ( F = 32.79, df = 1.2, p < 0.001), and a marginally significant trial type by group interaction ( F = 2.26, df = 2.2, p = 0.065).