“marginally significant”

The linear trend effect was marginally significant ( F 1,9 = 4.37, P = 0.066) explaining 49% of apparent dispersal variation in wet years, whose model averaged estimates (Table S1 in File S4 ) linearly decreased from 0.16 (SE = 0.03) to 0.09 (SE = 0.03) ( Figure 2 ).

The number of sexually active learners who reported more than one sex partner was higher in boys than in girls, though the association was marginally significant (boys = 50% vs. girls = 31.8%; χ 2 (n = 102) = 3.39, p = 0.066).

In the post-verb region, there was a marginally significant interaction of verb and structure type ( p = 0.066), but no significant effect was observed in other eye-movement measures.

When we omitted the NR subjects from our analyses, we still observed an effect of monetary reward [ F (2, 58) = 16.530, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant effect of liquid feedback [ F (1, 29) = 3.658, p = 0.066].

The Part factor was not significant for d-prime, F (3, 33) = 1.39, p = 0.26, and marginally significant for RT, F (3, 33) = 2.63, p = 0.066, indicating a trend toward acceleration of the responses.

(2012) (marginally significant p = 0.066), Gaston et al.

1 ) and tended to decrease with increasing exposure level ( P = 0.064): females under high exposure had lower probability to lay than females under low exposure ( P = 0.010) but there was a marginally significant difference between females under high exposure and unexposed females due to higher variation in the unexposed group ( P = 0.066, Table 2 , Fig. 2a ).

For this group, the conflict RT was marginally significant (t(13) = -2.004; p = .066) while the conflict accuracy was significant (t(13) = -2.4; p < .05).

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 ).

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.

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 results of time estimation showed that the difference between the experimental and control groups was marginally significant, t (55) = 1.87, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.5, and that the experimental group ( M = 7.57 s, SD = 3.63) was smaller than the control group ( M = 9.34 s, SD = 3.41).

However, the relation between education and use of sports facilities became marginally significant (p = 0.066), as did the mediation (p = 0.076).

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 ).

Separately, none of the models using green and blue space availability ( Supplementary Material Table S3 ) showed statistically relevant direct or indirect effects on the outcomes, with the sole exception of a marginally significant increase of 36 g ( p = 0.066) in BW in children delivered by mothers with green-space availability in 300 m in the model using NO 2 concentrations as mediator ( Supplementary Material Table S4 ).

The results also showed a trend of increased neutrophils in the microenvironment, although this trend along the stage progress were marginally significant (trend test, P = 0.066; Fig. 7c ).

Although the high group was marginally significant for improved OS (hazard ratio (HR)=0.559, P=0.066), it was statistically significant for improved DFS (HR=0.398, P=0.011), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (HR=0.165, P=0.001) with acceptable complications.

Healthy controls showed a greater alpha diversity based on observed OTUs (* p = 0.05) and marginally significant Chao1 indices ( p = 0.066) ( Figure 2 ).

The association with overall survival in non‐smoker patients remained marginally significant in multivariate Cox proportional‐hazards regression after adjustment for age, gender, and tumor stage (n = 130, HR = 0.560 [95% CI 0.30‐1.04]; P = .066) (Table S6 ).

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.

The interaction between age and sleep/wake condition was marginally significant (F(1,14) = 3.980, p = 0.066).

In contrast, for males the three-way interaction was marginally significant (LRT: χ 2 = 3.37, df = 3, p = 0.066, Figure 4 ).

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).