“marginally significant”

Specifically, the differences were statistically significant in three choice pairs: χ 2 2 (1, 189) = 6.484, p < .01 for choice pair two; χ 3 2 (1,189) = 4.825, p < .05 for choice pair three; χ 4 2 (1,189) = 9.029, p < .01 for choice pair four, and marginally significant in choice pair one: χ 1 2 (1,189) = 2.760, p = .066.

A marginally significant partner effect of care partner’s self‐efficacy on patient depression was observed (β = ‐0.05, P = 0.066), but no effect of patient’s self‐efficacy on caregiver’s depression was found.

Meanwhile, a marginally significant increase between pre- and post-tool use in the condition of searching with a cane ( p = 0.066) was found.

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.

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).

Consistent with this, a clear positive relationship was observed between diameter and FFG richness ( R 2 = 0.44, p = 0.003) (Figure 5c ), while a marginally significant relationship was identified between APL and FFG richness ( R 2 = 0.20, p = 0.066) (Figure 5d ). 3.3 Keystone Taxa in Shaping Biodiversity Keystone taxa which had higher centrality (higher degree or higher betweenness) were critical for modules and co‐occurrence networks and played important roles in determining biodiversity.

In bare patches, we detected a marginally significant effect of herbivore removal on ABG cover after 17 years (Treatment contrast in bare patches for 2016: F 1,20 = 3.79, p = .066).

Respiration rates after 6 months in the treatments were not significantly influenced by acidification, but tended to be lower in acidified conditions (reflected in a marginally significant interaction between pH and acclimation: F 1 = 4.513, p = 0.066; S2 Table ; Fig 2D ).

Additionally, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, which was conducted for CBF values between genotypes and time interaction terms, showed that genotypes ( p = 0.012) and time ( p < 0.0001) significantly affected the CBF values, and that the interaction was marginally significant ( p = 0.066).

The SPE was marginally significant as main effect over both matching and nonmatching conditions ( β = 17.37, SE = 9.46, p = .066), while, similar as with accuracy, the main effect of matching was significant ( β = 31.35, SE = 10.37, p = .003), as was the interaction effect ( β = −89.50, SE = 17.22, p < .001).

The significant increase of fit in the power model when incorporating both body surface area and time-in-house, and the marginally significant increase in the linear model (p-value = 0.066), are consistent with the hypothesis that people accumulate more bites at a location if they spend more time there.

A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA showed that the interaction effect was marginally significant for PSI ( p = 0.066) and statistically significant for both the child domain of PSI ( p = 0.049) and ECBI ( p = 0.013).

Directionally consistent with our hypotheses, this analysis revealed that higher status trials had a marginally significant higher proportion of donors than lower status ones, p = 0.066.

There was a marginally significant interaction between depression and valence, F (1, 201) = 3.42, p = .066, η p 2 = .017.

There was a marginally significant difference for post-test [ F (2, 62) = 2.84, p = 0.066].

For females, the result showed a significant main effect of treatment ( B = −0.064, p = 0.010), and a marginally significant social concern × treatment effect ( B = 0.046, p = 0.066); R 2 m = 0.028.

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].

3.4 Duration perception On the proportions of ‘long’ responses (see Figure 3 ), the main effects of probe durations ( F (6,70) = 46.513, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.799) and alcohol manipulations were significant ( F (1,75) = 4.103, p = 0.046, η p 2 = 0.052), and the alcohol manipulation × probe duration interaction was marginally significant ( F (6,70) = 2.082, p = 0.066, η p 2 = 0.151).

2 a–d, Table S1 ) and a marginally significant relation in another three populations (OK-BAC, TX-GRO, and TX-LIV, GLM Density: P = 0.066–0.074; see Table S1 ).

Considering that the glutamate concentration may recover under the punishment phase, we further conducted a 2 (Group: METH vs SAL)-by-2 (MRS session 1, 2) ANOVA, and the results showed a marginally significant Group-by-Session interaction ( F (1, 39) = 3.57, p = 0.066).

The number of female shakes was negatively related to the probability of male courtship in the second sexual encounter (χ 2 = 4.084; p = 0.043), but the number of mounts had only a marginally significant influence (χ 2 = 3.383; p = 0.066).

Study design showed a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.066).

IBD type specific analysis For HLA‐DQA1*02:01‐HLA‐DRB1*07:01 and IBD type the interaction was marginally significant ( p = 0.066), but not for rs2647085 and IBD type ( p = 0.287; Table S1 ).

Additionally, the corresponding OR for the high-level group (>10 mg/g cre.) is 3.05, a marginally significant result ( p = 0.066). 4.

aeruginosa there was a marginally significant interaction between donor microbiome and genotype ( F = 1.9; df = 7, 219; p = 0.066).