“marginally significant”

The same 2-way interaction effect was marginally significant for the trials with the effect prime absent F (1, 241) = 3.31, p = .070, η p 2 = .01.

Consumption cost had a marginally significant effect on the number of clips [ F (1,71) = 3.36, p = 0.07]: Participants selected slightly more clips in the low-cost condition ( M = 5.59, SD = 2.84) than in the high-cost condition ( M = 4.47, SD = 2.41).

The ANOVA yielded a predicted Emotional Intensity × Initial Implementation interaction that was marginally significant [ F (1, 27) = 3.36, P = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.11; Figure 2 , Supplementary Table S1 for all effects].

The interaction between PCR (+) and PCR (−) groups and visit on log F eno was marginally significant ( P = .07).

There was a similarly marginally significant negative linear relationship (F = 3.72; df = 1, 20; r 2 = 0.16; p = 0.07) between sum counts of T. castaneum and dome trap distance from incoming unshelled peanut product.

Nevertheless, there was a marginally significant difference in the ML at the C4/C5 segment (15.63 ± 1.47 mm vs. 15.18 ± 1.28 mm, p = 0.07).

The results of the response time ANOVA (i.e., mean release times for correctly executed go trials) indicated a main effect of distance [ F (1,20) = 7.12, p = 0.01, partial eta-squared = 0.26, observed power (alpha 0.05) = 0.72] and a marginally significant session x distance interaction [ F (1,20) = 3.47, p = 0.07, partial eta-squared = 0.15, observed power (alpha 0.05) = 0.43].

The associations of grades of dipstick proteinuria with stages of localized periodontitis were marginally significant in Models 1–3 (β = 0.03, p = 0.07, 0.06 and 0.07, respectively).

The main effect of emotional valence was marginally significant, F (1, 78) = 3.40, p = .07, indicating a slightly better recall performance for neutral items.

There was marginally significant evidence of gender as an effect modifier for the any E. coli outcome ( P = 0.07).

We found a marginally significant main effect of congruence (χ 2 (1) = 3.1, p = 0.07), a main effect of task (χ 2 (1) = 5.0, p = 0.02) and no main effect of AOI (χ 2 (3) = 1.8, p = 0.6).

Disturbed communities had a marginally significant lower density of organisms ( F 1,90 = 3.4, P = 0.07), while there was no significant interaction among these two factors on density ( F 8,90 = 0.8, P = 0.6).

In terms of the d-FRN's statistical analysis from the other-chosen stocks, a 2 (stock owner: self, other) × 10 (electrode: F3, F4, FC1, FC2, Fz, Cz, C3, C4, CP1, and CP2) ANOVA produced a marginally significant main effect of ownership, F (1, 21) = 3.65, p = 0.07, η 2 partial = 0.148.

Marginally significant differences were observed in the distribution of the time elapsed since the last cigarette (p=0.07) and the FTND score (p=0.067) among the 5 groups.

The results showed that this indirect effect was marginally significant when emotion suppression was low ( indirect effect = 0.022, SE = 0.01, p = .07, 95% CI [-0.027, 0.032]), but not significant when emotion suppression was high ( indirect effect = 0.002, SE = 0.02, ns ), and the difference between these two indirect effects was significant ( indirect effect = − 0.019, SE = 0.01, p < .05, 95% CI [-0.037, − 0.001]), providing support for the moderated mediated effect.

For the 1 s delay condition, a marginally significant difference was evident between the high sleep quality group and the low sleep quality group ( p = 0.07).

Additionally, the pathway from Week 4 SPA to Week 8 PA was marginally significant (β = .11, p = .07).

In ACUTE-COVID, T1 had significantly more symptoms than T2 ( M = 5.3, SD = 3.1 and M = 4.3, SD = 2.6 respectively, p =.002) while the difference with T3 was marginally significant ( p =.07).

The interaction effect ( diatom × basin ) was marginally significant (p < 0.07; Table 1 ), with the difference between HD and LD being more pronounced for BP than BoS amphipods (Fig. 3 ).

During extinction, there was a significant main effect of Stimulus F (2, 36) = 5.19, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.22 and Time, F (1, 18) = 88.30, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.83, and a marginally significant Stimulus × Time interaction, F (2, 36) = 2.85, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.14, suggesting that the decrease in FPS differed between the CSs from early to late extinction.

Results showed that the effect size of PATHS at follow-up was 0.10, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

The main effect of direction consistency was marginally significant ( M = 18.3 ms), F (1, 13) = 4.0, p = 0.07.

Although marginally significant, the second was directed from the default mode network (DMN) to the ventral attention network ( p = .07).

However, the simple main effect of the GROUP CONDITION was marginally significant for the transposed-letter nonword condition [ F (1, 29) = 3.43, p = 0.07] but not for the correct word condition [ F (1, 29) = 0.77, p = 0.38].

In the two-way interaction model, the interaction of percent positivity with relationship quality was marginally significant, p = 0.07, as was the interaction of cosine and relationship quality, p = 0.054.