“marginally significant”

The G1 domain showed a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.07), while no statistically significant difference was found in the social relationships domain ( p = 0.45) ( Figure 16 ).

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).

Post-hoc paired-samples t -tests for each age group indicated that there was a significant difference in local efficiency from rest to 2-back for young participants, t (13) = 4.22, p = .001, Cohen’s d = 1.13, and a marginally significant difference for older participants, t (14) = 1.96, p = .070, Cohen’s d = 0.51.

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).

Moreover, the mediating effect of emotion regulation difficulties was significantly different in the relationship between fear of compassion from others and emotion eating (Wald test χ2 = 4.98, df = 1, p < 0.05), and it was marginally significant in the relationship between fear of compassion for self and emotional eating (Wald test χ 2 = 3.19, df = 1, p = 0.07).

This effect was qualified by a marginally significant interaction between sex and status ( P < .07): higher scores of patients with CAH than controls were specific to females.

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

This analysis indeed revealed a marginally significant mediation effect for the fluency effect in the Error rates ( z = 1.9; p < .07), but not for the effect in RTs ( z = −1.4; p = .17).

Interestingly, ESCCs under strong selection exhibit significantly higher gITH ( P < 0.001) and achieve a marginally significant increase for copy number ITH ( P = 0.07) as compared to samples with neutral evolution.

This finding was consistently found for the four groups of students, but the difference in LMA between girls and boys in grade 10 was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

The mean doses for the ipsilateral heart in TomoDirect and 3D-CRT of left breast cancer patients were 1.44 Gy and 2.32 Gy, respectively, and the difference was marginally significant ( p =0.070).

The single and divorced persons showed marginally significant higher proportion of headache prevalence as compared to married people ( X 2 =5.31, P = 0.07).

2 that improvement of 3-key chords was larger between Blocks 1 and 2 in the Right-hand than the 2-Hand group was marginally significant, F (1,30) = 3.54, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.11.

Those high on group level self-investment showed marginally significant favoritism toward the in-group, b = −0.01, SE = 0.01, Wald χ 2 = 3.30, P = 0.07, whereas those low on group-level self-investment showed favoritism toward the out-group, b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, Wald χ 2 = 4.82, P = 0.03.

marginale replication was significantly impacted at the 96 h time point, and a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.07) was observed at the 72 h time point ( Figure 4 A, Supplementary File S1 ).

Better performance in the PS domain was related to higher FA in FMAJ and IFOF and lower MD in CHC, CS, FMAJ, and IFOF (marginally significant, p = 0.07).

The repeated measures ANOVA showed that SAR did not affect soil pH value in the PF ( p = 0.997), but it significantly reduced soil pH value in the BF ( p = 0.01) and the reduction was marginally significant in the MF ( p = 0.07).

The other study found marginally significant differences between groups, with a greater decrease in mean hs-CRP with 100% OJ intake but lower final hs-CRP concentrations with OJ from concentrate ( P = 0.07) ( 41 ).

The main effect of group was marginally significant [ X 2 (2) = 5.14, p = 0.07].

Only following immediate post-reactivation interference, IPIs pattern generated at the very beginning of the retest session on Day3 was significantly modified by continued practice, as indicated by a significant effect of block across groups ( F (4.24,280.00) = 4.68, p = 0.001), a marginally significant block by group interaction ( F (12.73,280.00) = 1.70, p = 0.07) and a significant effect of block only in the ReactInt group in the subsequent post hoc analyses ( F (3.59,68.12) = 8.37, p < 0.001; F (3.00,42.01) = 0.50, p = 0.68; F (4.05,77.00) = 0.37, p = 0.83; F (3.32,4646) = 1.56, p = 0.21, ReactInt, React8hInt, ReactNoInt and NoReactNoInt group respectively).

This was primarily the case for the trustworthiness trait [congruent: Pearson’s r = 0.0076 ± 0.066 (mean ± SD across neurons); incongruent: r = −0.0075 ± 0.062; two-tailed paired t test: t (628) = 2.96, p = 0.003]; the dominance trait only showed a marginally significant difference between conditions (congruent: r = −0.0073 ± 0.060; incongruent: r = 0.0015 ± 0.060; t (628) = 1.82, p = 0.07).

The overall model for conservative media use was marginally significant F (5, 377) = 2.07, p < 0.07, R 2 = 0.03, while the main effects of conservative media use b = 0.40, t (377) = 2.05, p < 0.01 and the interaction between conservative media use and message frames b = -0.28, t (377) = -2.27, p < 0.01 were both significant.

Nevertheless, the wasp chose more the arms loaded with the natural putative concentration of ( E )-β-ocimene as compared to the solvent control, although the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.07) (Fig. 7 C , Supplementary Table 3).

Likewise, adding relative risk to a model with only absolute risk improved fit significantly (p<.001), whereas adding absolute risk to a model including relative risk was associated with only a marginally significant improvement in fit (p=.07).

The analyses showed that the CNA x condition interaction on the error score of absolute task was significant, b = 0.485, SE = 0.198, p = 0.02, [95% CI = 0.092, 0.879], β = 0.305, and that CPA × condition interaction on the error score of absolute task was marginally significant, b = 0.323, SE = 0.177, p = 0.07, [95% CI = −0.674, 0.029], β = −0.260.