“marginally significant”

This result is marginally significant at a 10% level ( p = 0.066).

In PPC, a strong value effect was found ( t (17) = 4.27, p = 5.8e−4), while the saliency predictor was marginally significant ( t (17) = 1.97, p = 0.066).

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

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 ).

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).

31 Thus, our findings here that TSC subjects with SEGA enrolled on EXIST-1 had a marginally significant increase in the proportion of TSC2 : TSC1 mutations, 87 vs 13% ( P =0.0662), fit these previous observations.

The effect of text messaging on completing cervical cancer screening was marginally significant for MLIU patients (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.99–1.23, P=0.0663).

The analysis found that there was a marginally significant association between gender and LDH levels ( p = 0.0663).

sham of −135 ms was marginally significant ( p = 0.0664).

Associations between Betti metrics and disease duration also remained significant and highly consistent; the only exception was that the association between disease duration and Betti-0 number in the full analysis ( p = 0.0241) became marginally significant in the subset analysis ( p = 0.0665).

The WS form laid more eggs than the DS form controlling for eyespot treatment, but it was marginally significant (DS form 13.3 ± 1.4 eggs, WS form 18.2 ± 2.1 eggs, F 1,44 = 3.88, p = 0.0666).

Adults with low UIC had increased risk of elevated total cholesterol (>200 mg/dL) at marginally significant levels ( p = 0.0666). 4.

A Mantel test indicated that isolation by distance was marginally significant ( p = .0667, r = 0.513).

The social relationships domain accounted for 7.2% of the variance ( R 2 = 0.072), marginally significant ( F (16, 332) = 1.601, p = 0.067), where dentistry students (β = 7.823, p = 0.024) and those aged 20–23 (β = 10.296, p = 0.009) showed higher scores, in contrast to lower scores from second (β = −11.146, p = 0.007), third (β = −13.629, p = 0.002), and fourth-year students (β = −10.144, p = 0.012).

Intraoperatively, patients perceived a marginally significant 0.4 points more pain in the eye treated with tetracaine than in the eye treated with proparacaine (95% CI 0.0–0.8, P =0.067), after controlling for pain experienced during drop instillation.

Furthermore, RG2 showed a marginally significant association with a high risk of intra-partum complications, high birth weight and cesarean section ( p = 0.067, 0.106 and 0.095, respectively).

This effect was qualified by a marginally significant interaction between colour label and snack bar type, F (2, 937) = 2.71, p = .067, η 2 = 0.005.

This difference was marginally significant (p = .067, 95% CI [−.983, .026]).

However, perceived social support showed a small, marginally significant association with resilience ( β = 0.10, p = .067), while perceived organizational support and burnout were not significantly associated statistically significant association with resilience.

The absence of any substance was another marginally significant predictor for early appearance (OR = 2.555; 95% (0.936–6.970); p = 0.067).

This comparison yielded a marginally significant effect in favor of the additive model χ 2 (2) = 5.42, p = 0.067, p pb = 0.069, indicating that the two additional parameters did indeed add explanatory value.

An independent sample t -test indicated that, similar to Study 1, there was only a marginally significant difference in self-reported SES between the two groups, t (100) = 1.85, p = 0.067, Cohen’s d = 0.37.

The interaction between FCLD and habitat in the full model was marginally significant (estimate = −0.075 ± 0.041, p = 0.067; Table 1a ), suggesting that the selection tended to be stronger in the forest.

Although there was a marginally significant zero‐order correlation between time pressure and hindrance appraisal at the within‐person level ( r = .11, SE = 0.06, p = .067), the effect of time pressure on hindrance appraisal was not significant in the MSEM when the effects of learning demands on hindrance appraisal were controlled for.

valenced (i.e., angry and happy) faces revealed a marginally significant effect, F (1,78) = 3.44, p = .067, η 2 p = .04, indicating that angry ( M = 442.69 ms, SD = 131.17) and happy faces ( M = 438.59 ms, SD = 133.72) produced more attentional adhesion than neutral ones ( M = 432.20 ms, SD = 134.74).