“marginally significant”

Sample type showed a marginally significant effect (p-value = 0.07), with the 6% M and 9% samples demonstrating superior performance compared to other samples.

A 2x3 ANOVA analyzing the increasing and decreasing flank of the BHA to lateral distractors between the three lateral distractor columns revealed a marginally significant main effect of column ( F 2,174 = 2.71; P = 0.07), indicating a trend of increasing BHA with proximity between the lateral distractor and central target.

Furthermore, the intervention predicted participants’ personal norm marginally significant ( B = −0.17; p = 0.07, CI [−0.349; 0.016]), which in turn predicted participants’ willingness to offer expired but still edible food highly significant ( B = 0.05, p < 0.001, CI [0.019; 0.076]).

This effect was marginally significant when salt was applied on the plate ( F (6383,7) = 2.14, p = 0.07) and was not significant for unsalted carrots ( F (310,7) = 1.47, p = 0.25).

inoffensive comments (Δ p – Δ q ) revealed a marginally significant difference (χ 2 (1) = 3.34, p = .07), suggesting that fusion's effect on selective censoring may have been larger for offensive than inoffensive comments.

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.

Excluding the high control group (in which the manipulation was ineffective), revealed a marginally significant difference t (185) = -1.815, p = 0.07, d = 0.27; the low and high groups did not differ, t (162) = - 0.925, p = 0.36, d = 0.14.

We found a marginally significant group effect [ F (1,39.98) = 3.389, p = 0.07, estimate = 228, SE = 124; effect size = 0.51], length effect [ F (1,28.63) = 18.58, p < 0.001, estimate = 239, SE = 58.1; effect size = 0.52], and spelling type effect [ F (1,29.59) = 6.23, p < 0.05, estimate = 131, SE = 52.4; effect size = 0.53).

While we failed to find a significant interaction effect [ F (3,102) = 2.28, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.01], we did find a marginally significant effect of control type [ F (1,34) = 3.44, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.05] (see Figure 3 for a plot of the data associated with this analysis, as well as Table 2 for each cell of the repeated measures ANOVA).

We found marginally significant evidence indicating the hypothesized moderating effect of age on peer influence on STEM-related activities (β = −1.44, SE = 0.97, one-sided p = 0.07).

However, for the day 28 linear regression model without lab values, treatment group was marginally significant in the full model (β = 0.86, p = 0.07) (S4 Table in S1 File ).

We found that unretired older adults’ negative attitudes toward older population in personality and mental health predicted a lower likelihood of post-retirement employment planning at a marginally significant level (p = .07), even after controlling socioeconomic status.

The differences in virus accumulation were statistically significant ( P < 0.05) on days 14 and 84 and were marginally significant ( P < 0.07) on days 28 and 56.

While the correlation between multiplication skill and temporal cortex activation at T1 was not significant ( r = −.26, p = .22), the correlation at T2 was marginally significant ( r = .37, p = .07).

The decrease in total Hg in the brain over time was marginally significant ( p < 0.07), with an apparent T 1/2 of 59.5 ± 24.1 days.

A marginally significant ( p = 0.07) inverse relationship between the number of children and mean hair THg concentration was found with the highest levels in women who had not had children previously.

At the 12-week follow-up, there was no group main effect ( F = 0.28, P = .60); however, a marginally significant group × role interaction ( F = 3.53, P = .07) was revealed so that patients, but not spouses, reported less anxiety in the intervention than those in the WLC group (patient LSMs: intervention = 5.94; WLC = 7.93; spouse LSM: intervention = 9.02; WLC = 7.90).

In the logistic regression model, individuals in the PmPPF group were more likely to have a UIP pattern compared to the non‐PmPPF group, and this effect was marginally significant (odds ratio [OR] = 4.44, P = 0.07) but was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for age and sex (OR = 3.39, P = 0.17).

There was a significant interaction between time × quality of memory ( F (2,653) = 14.324, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.021) and a marginally significant interaction between quality of memory × genotype ( F (1,653) = 2.673, p = 0.070, η 2 = 0.008).

This analysis yielded a main effect of model-based values, b = 0.30, SE = 0.14, t (71.46) = 2.17, p = 0.03, and a marginally significant main effect of model-free values, b = 0.16, SE = 0.09, t (162.97) = 1.82, p = 0.07.

Participants’ Evaluation An ANOVA on the participants’ evaluation revealed a significant main effect of PDB (M high PDB = 4.26, M low PDB = 4.84; F(1,92) = 7.706, p = 0.007) and marginally significant main effect of the purchase type (M material purchase = 4.35, M experiential purchase = 4.74; F(1,92) = 3.407, p = 0.07).

The phase relationships at other frequencies were not significant except for a marginally significant difference around 180° ( p = 0.07) at 9.38 Hz.

For the P2 component, repeated-measures ANOVA confirmed a marginally significant main effect of salience, F (1, 25) = 3.68, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.13, in the absence of a significant congruency effect, F (1, 25) = 0.04, p = 0.85, η 2 p = 0.001.

HL, on the other hand, showed only a marginally significant effect on attitudes ( p = 0.070).

PC2 scores from pPCA are associated with mean annual temperature (partial r 2 = 0.33, P = 0.04), while PC2 scores from regular PCA show a marginally significant relationship (partial r 2 = 0.29, P = 0.07).