“marginally significant”

Age difference in CD44 expression was statistically significant in peripheral blood (P<0.0001) and spleen (P<0.01), and was marginally significant in the BM (P<0.07).

The same findings apply for ASI2 , with a greater consumption of glutamic acid, arginine, and phenylalanine sources (6.7, 17.3, and 4%, respectively) and marginally significant for isoleucine (p-value = 0.07, t -test), in the WE allelic variant compared to the WA background ( Figure 2B ).

A GLM analysis showed that there was a marginally significant effect of religiosity, F (1, 188) = 3.38, p = .07, upon attitudes towards cousin marriages, whereas the other significant effects remained as strong, with the exception of the interaction between ethnic group and life history strategy, that became marginally significant, F (2, 188) = 2.65, p = .07.

In this model, sex*previous win*group prime is marginally significant ( F [1,343] = 3.24, p = 0.07).

Additionally, there was a marginally significant difference in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test ( F (1,44) = 3.44, p = 0.07), with the ASD only group having a marginally higher mean when controlling for FIQ, indicating that the ASD + ADHD group present slightly higher difficulties in the Eyes Test.

Contact with cows with diarrhoea was marginally significant ( p = 0.07) and class remained in the model as a confounder.

In addition, the Go-N2 amplitude showed a marginally significant effect of the Group factor (F (2, 49) = 2.7; p = 0.07), as the amplitude was larger in the Control group than in the sdaMCI group.

Post hoc comparisons revealed that the controls were marginally significantly more efficient in the congruent condition as compared to the unimodal condition ( t (25) = -2.25, p = .07; marginally significant congruency effect).

This did not interact with ASD outcome group ( F( 2,49) = 0.88, p = 0.42, ρ 2 = 0.04), remained marginally significant if responses to objects were covaried (F(1,49) = 3.44, p = 0.07, ρ 2 = 0.07), and was not present for other components of Surgency (S2.2.2).

We found a marginally significant simple effect of Group, such that ASD participants had lower CC [ B = -0.898; SE = 0.501; Wald Chi-Square = 2.12; p = 0.07; Exp(B) = 0.41]; a simple effect of Repetitive [ B = 0; SE = 0.001; Wald Chi-Square = 3.99; p = 0.046; Exp(B) = 1.00], such that participants who moved faster during the Repetitive motion task, attained more CC in the Following round of the MG.

But there was a marginally significant effect of group ( F (2, 11) =3.42, p =0.07) as clearly observed in the upper panels of Figure 2 .

A previous study by 42 investigated auditory evoked potentials in response to heartbeat-related sounds versus externally generated sounds and found a marginally significant (p = 0.07) suppression of the N1 component when sound onset was locked to the participant’s heartbeat.

As for the explicit measure of math anxiety, a marginally significant positive correlation was found between maternal help and the sum of children’s responses on the AMAS self-report questionnaire ( r = 0.28, p = 0.07).

We found a marginally significant main effect of GROUP, F(1,22) = 3.37, p = 0.07, and a statistically significant interaction between GROUP and BMI, F(1,22) = 4.53, p < 0.05 showing that sensitivity in the yes-no task for women with ANSD is statistically different from that of the controls, as can be seen in Fig. 3b .

Gaze durations for the same region showed a marginally significant simple effect of Structure for which RCE patterned faster than SRCE in the Plausible conditions ( p = 0.07).

For Caucasians, the main effect of condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.07), the main effect of SOA was significant ( p < 0.01), and the interaction was not significant.

Only the simple slope for Vietnamese American female spouses was significant ( b ( SE ) = 0.73 (0.25), t = 2.92, p = .01), although the simple slope for Vietnamese American male spouses was marginally significant ( b ( SE ) = −0.40 (0.20), t = 2.02, p = .07).

This effect may be driven more by suppression than facilitation: the facilitative effect of hearing a paired sound was not significantly different from a chance rate of 0.5 ( Figure 3a , left bar): two-tailed t test, t (19) = 1.03, p = 0.32, whereas the suppressive effect of hearing any other sound was marginally significant ( Figure 3a , right bar): t (19) = −1.91, p = 0.07.

Age was marginally significant, p = .07.

Finally, a three-way validity × believability × stimulation condition was marginally significant, F ( 1 , 33 ) = 3 . 58 , p = 0 . 07 , η p 2 = 0 . 10 .

The difference between the two groups’ slopes in the neutral-face condition was marginally significant (B = 29.889, SE = 16.241, t = 1.840, p = 0.07), with the depressed group’s slope being 29.89 pixels (or 4.5% of the available distance scale) flatter than the non-depressed group per unit of valence (solid lines across panels in Fig. 2 ).

The main effect of Group was marginally significant (t (41) = 1.88, p = 0.07, d = 0.59), with RTs in general being somewhat slower in the ASD group (M = 447.0, SD = 130.7) than in the control group (M = 386.0, SD = 66.8).

This difference was marginally significant ( P = .07, chi‐square test).

With regard to envy intensity, participants reported a marginally significant higher level of envy when they read the reported experiential post than the reported material post, t (129) = 1.83, p = .070, d z = 0.16.

As we expected, the main effect of nonverbal restraint on the perceived-leadership-worthiness score was marginally significant ( b = 0.25, SE = 0.13, p = 0.07).