“marginally significant”

Regarding executive function, cognitive inhibition capacity and processing speed (Stroop) did not show significant differences; however, problem-solving (WCST) errors exhibited a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.0656).

Partial correlation analysis showed that only the positive correlation between HAMD scores and the FC of the posterior parietal thalamus with the bilateral precuneus/post cingulate cortex in MDD was marginally significant ( r = 0.43, p = 0.066), and it was markedly different from the corresponding correlation in HCs (HCs: r = −0.232, p = 0.298; Fisher z = 2.136, p = 0.034).

Several animation design variables were marginally significant at the 10% level, including perceived diversity representation ( P = 0.066), uniquely Latino elements among younger participants ( P = 0.059), and liking the animation among younger participants ( P = 0.073).

In addition, significant correlations were observed between the score on the Purdue Pegboard task and the early RRN for right-hand stimuli for the left hemisphere, r = 0.646, p < 0.05 and a marginally significant effect for the right hemisphere, r = 0.601, p = 0.066.

A positive association of totT with CBF was observed (r = 0.167, P = 0.023), which was marginally significant after restricting analysis to HT non-users (r = 0.161, P = 0.066).

The Χ 2 test revealed marginally significant differences in visual problems ( Χ 2 = 10.3, df = 5, p = 0.066; without suspected cases: Χ 2 = 9.32, df = 5, p = 0.097) between the ASD and non-ASD groups.

None of the variables predict self-harming behavior, except for the two related to interaction with content in digital social networks self-injury ( p = 0.043) and suicide ( p = 0.001) content in digital social networks; suicide ideation is marginally significant ( p = 0.066).

In terms of symptom change from pretreatment to follow-up, the prediction model was marginally significant, F (7, 43) = 2.08, p = .066).

As mentioned above, the simple main effect of Solution Style, i.e ., the personal evaluation of each participant about her/his own responses being the result of an insight- or analytic-based problem-solving process, showed a marginally significant effect [F (1,29) = 2.79, p = 0.066].

After further adjustment for potential confounders, risk of hypertension increased slightly (1.55; 1.11–2.16) and risk of all-cause mortality reached a marginally significant level (2.17; 0.95–5.00, P value = 0.066) in the never married compared to married men.

For LF power, we also found a significant phase (challenge-baseline) × age group interaction ( p = .012; Table 2 ) and a marginally significant phase (recovery-challenge) × age group interaction effect ( p = .066; Table 2 ); pairwise comparisons indicated significant baseline-to-challenge decreases and challenge-to-recovery increases in LF power for younger but not older participants ( Supplementary Results , Section 1 ).

Finally, the HUD × Session two‐way interaction (comparing Sessions 1 and 4) described above was marginally significant when fog was present in the environment ( g = 0.031, SE = 0.012, t (169.5) = 2.57, p = .066), but not when there was clear visibility of the environment ( g = 0.001, SE = 0.012, t (161.88) = 0.10, p > .999).

Exploratory Outcomes (Optimism Regarding Future Negative Events) An exploratory analysis revealed that when valence was added as an additional factor in the analysis, there was only a marginally significant time × valence × group interaction, F (2, 220) = 2.903, p = 0.066, η p 2 = 0.022, regarding comparative optimism bias for future events when we controlled for variations in trait optimism.

The effect of stimulus was marginally significant ( F (1, 45) = 3.57; p = .066; η 2 p = .08), reflecting shorter overall RTs to the shape than the hand (mean difference = 10.30 ms).

Pheophytin, an indicator of dead phytoplankton, was also highest in freshwater and lowest in emergent salt marsh, but this effect was marginally significant ( F 5 , 30 = 2.34, P = 0.066; Means ± SD: freshwater = 15.84 ± 9.79 μg/L, tidal-forested = 10.39 ± 3.40 μg/L, transitional = 8.91 ± 4.42 μg/L, emergent salt marsh = 5.00 ± 4.28 μg/L, mudflat = 11.44 ± 10.44 μg/L, eelgrass = 5.03 ± 2.85 μg/L).

Regarding the N100 latency, we did to find a main effect of group , F (1, 27) = 1.61, p =.216, η 2 p = 0.056, but the main effect of condition was marginally significant, F (1, 27) = 3.68, p =.066, η 2 p = 0.120.

Participants showed a marginally significant increase in overall discrimination accuracy (day 1: 83.8 ± 8.0%, mean ± standard deviation; day 2: 86.8 ± 5.8%; paired t test, t (19) = 1.95, P = 0.066; Cohen’s d av = 0.43) [ 41 ] and a significant decrease in overall discrimination RTs (day 1: 696 ± 70 ms; day 2: 665 ± 72 ms; paired t test, t (19) = 3.17, P = 0.005; Cohen’s d av = 0.43).

A supplementary sensitivity analysis decomposing ARSME into behavioral engagement and psychological investment components revealed that psychological investment showed a marginally significant prospective effect on body dissatisfaction ( β = 0.08, p = 0.066), while behavioral screen time did not, providing preliminary support for cognitive-processing-focused interventions.

Heart rate variability The MANOVA found a significant effect for Moments (Wilk’s Lambda: 0.108, F 32, 38 = 2.42, p = 0.005, ŋ p 2 = 0.67, OP = 0.99), a marginally significant interaction between Moments and Group (Wilk’s Lambda: 0.173, F 32, 38 = 1.67, p = 0.066, ŋ p 2 = 0.58, OP = 0.92), and a significant interaction between Moments, Group, and VR (Wilk’s Lambda: 0.110, F 32, 38 = 2.40, p = 0.005, ŋ p 2 = 0.67, OP = 0.99).

In addition to the main effects, there were marginally significant Target Number × Visibility ( F (1, 9) = 4.37, p = 0.066, η p 2 = 0.33) and Target Number × Task Perturbation ( F (1, 9) = 4.79, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.35) interactions.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between Condition, Block, and Group, F (3,114) = 2.47, p < 0.066, η p 2 = 0.06.

There was no gender difference between benign and malignant groups, but a marginally significant association was shown between female and PTC (OR = 0.866, CI 0.744–1.009, P = .066).

Only when exogenous cue was presented in the central location of hearing participants, the facilitation effect was marginally significant, t (33) = 1.90, p = 0.066.

On the other hand, a positive correlation was found between NfL and age at treatment ( r = 0.59, P = .046) along with a marginally significant correlation between NfL and duration of the disease ( r = 0.55, P = .066) (Figure 2 E and 2 ).

When electron transport chain complex components were curated into individual sets representing subunits of complexes I–V, all but complex II proteins were reduced in insulin-resistant subjects, with complexes III and IV achieving statistical significance ( P < 0.05) and complex I being marginally significant ( P = 0.066).