“marginally significant”

Interestingly, the previous number of manic episodes had a marginally significant but positive effect on early discharge (adjusted OR = 1.08, p = .067), which suggests that while early discharge was driven by mania improvement during the first 7 days, the patient's history of recurrence of mania was not considered in making early discharge decisions.

Genetic effects of NOS1 ex1f‐VNTR genotypes on inhibition and its related brain structural/functional patterns Marginally significant interaction of NOS1 ex1f‐VNTR genotypes (based on the allele counts of 25R) and ADHD diagnosis was found for inhibition function ( F = 2.82, p = 0.067).

This difference is marginally significant ( Figure 5 A, p = 0.067 by Fisher’s exact test); although, the expected Nonsyn/Syn could be slightly reduced when only the edited genes were considered.

There was a marginally significant association between each 1.00 logMAR unit decrease of pre-operative VA and the need for GDD implantation (HR 1.82, p = 0.067).

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.

VEGF treatment induced a further increase in CD443MUT cellular binding compared to non-induced cells, although this result was statistically marginally significant (P = 0.067, n = 3; Figure 3B ).

There was only a marginally significant difference between EG Ability and EG Opinion with respect to positive affect ( t (407) = −1.84, p = 0.067, d = 0.71), so hypothesis 2a had to be rejected.

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).

However, the log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier method was marginally significant (p = 0.067).

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 current intimate touch (CIT) scale was identified as a marginally significant predictor of the quadratic velocity terms for 0.4 N touch ( F (1, 23) = 3.68, p = .067).

In STARR, other statins were associated with reduced colectomy rates as well (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.57–1.01; Supplementary Table 5 ) that was marginally significant ( P = .067).

The interaction effect between condition and measure was marginally significant in post-induction, F (1, 82) = 3.44, p < 0.067, η p 2 = 0.04, and simple effect analysis showed that the N3 mean amplitudes of incongruence were greater than that of congruence at post-induction (all ps < 0.01), whereas such an effect was not found at the baseline or post-intervention (all ps > 0.05).

Significant/marginally significant effects were only observed in both response rates and HDRS-17 decreases for VEN (odds ratio = 2.53 [95% CI 0.94–6.80], p = 0.067; HDRS-17 difference: −2.7 [95% CI −5.5 to 0.0], p = 0.054) and for SSRI+PST (odds ratio = 2.46 [95% CI 0.92 to 6.62], p = 0.074; HDRS-17 difference: −3.1 [95% CI −5.8 to −0.3], p = 0.032).

The main effect of identification was marginally significant, F (1, 229) = 3.38, p = .067, η 2 p = .01, 90% CI [.000, .05], β = −.11.

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.

This may have been because of marginally significant differences in leaf width by year alone (F = 3.47, d.f. = 1,58, p = 0.067).

A marginally significant interaction effect was found between gender and picture type for emotional experience (F (1,25) = 3.80, p = 0.067; ηP 2 = 0.13).

Thus, we found that apoptosis of tumor cells in the ESC + MWCNT vaccine group was higher from that of the control group ( P < 0.05) and the increase was marginally significant compared with the ESC or MWCNT groups ( P = 0.067 for ESC; P = 0.072 for MWCNT).

There was also only a marginally significant indirect effect of the expectation of the robot’s future role on the interaction evaluation via perceived sociability and competence (β = .15, SE = 0.07, p = .067).

Our results indicate that there is a marginally significant cross-level relationship between group-level change impact and change fairness interactions for change self-efficacy (γ = -0.53, p = 0.067) and positive experience to change (γ = -0.47, p = 0.054), as shown in Model 4 and Model 10 in Table 3 .

Comparing the effects of writing about the fear-inducing event and writing about a walk in the city park/forest revealed a weak and marginally significant main effect of measurement point for positive affect, Greenhouse–Geisser F (2.59, 329.24) = 2.51, p = .067, η p 2 = .019, and a strong significant main effect for negative affect, Greenhouse–Geisser F (2.18, 276.96) = 49.38, ε = 0.727, p < .001, η p 2 = .280.

Interestingly, although TBARS concentrations displayed only a marginally significant association with VPA-caused liver dysfunction ( p = 0.067), there was a 2.6-fold (95% CI: 0.693–6.436) increased risk for liver dysfunction progression.

Fixation Times The interaction between assessment, picture type, and group type was marginally significant, F (1, 19)=4.2, p =0.067, η p 2 =0.3, and further simple effects analysis revealed that after the intervention, the own-age face intervention group gazed at children’s pictures significantly more often postintervention than preintervention ( p =0.043) and significantly more often than the other-age face intervention group ( p =0.018).

Of note, the mediation model of thalamus activation mediating the relationship between length of NREM 2&3 sleep and PVT median speed was marginally significant (indirect effect estimate=059, p = 0.067); and the significant path c in this model (Table S5 ) suggested a negative direct effect without introducing the mediator (estimate = −0.008, p = 0.03).