“marginally significant”

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant moderating effect of age ( F 1, 62 = 3.44, p = 0.07), with older adults (≥60 years) showing a tendency toward larger effects ( g = −0.52, 95% CI, −0.72 to −0.32) compared to younger participants (<60 years; g = −0.23, 95% CI, −0.47 to 0.01).

In pediatric ALL patients, the novel Hispanic-specific ALL risk signal at ERG locus exhibited marginally significant association with ALL susceptibility in Chinese patients ( P = 0.07, OR = 1.18 [0.99-1.41]), and reached statistical significance in patients without common fusion ( P = 0.02, OR = 1.29 [1.04-1.61]), which has been validated in previous study [ 28 ].

When accounting for the covariates, the velocity in fine motor skills (Model 2) was marginally significant in predicting later expressive language scores, t = 1.81, p = .07, R 2 = 14.4%.

There was a main effect of prime type on relative accuracy, F (1,68) = 4.63, p < 0.05, and a marginally significant cognitive load by prime-type interaction, F (1,68) = 3.33, p = 0.07.

These effects of tempo on both CVs and key velocities were observed in all pianists, as indicated by non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests (for Pianists 2–4, p <.05; Pianist 1, p = .07, marginally significant).

A nonmonotonic trend could be observed; however, the differences between the first local maximum to the local minimum, and the local minimum to the next local maximum were marginally significant ( r s c ̄ 0.5 mm = 0.0266 ± 0.0032 vs. r s c ̄ 2.5 mm = 0.0165 ± 0.0021, P = 0.07; and r s c ̄ 2.5 mm = 0.0165 ± 0.0021 vs. r s c ̄ 4 mm = 0.0266 ± 0.0054, P = 0.1; green curve in Fig. 6 B ).

The older adults showed a significant effect for Target Gender (χ 2 = 4.34, df: 1, p < 0.05), and this effect was marginally significant for the fifth-graders (χ 2 = 3.37, df: 1, p = 0.07).

Of the secondary outcomes, the effect was statistically significant for anxiety (Cohen’s d, 0.41; P = .01) and marginally significant for post-traumatic stress (Cohen’s d, 0.35; P = .07) and traumatic grief (Cohen’s d, 0.26; P = .08).

A marginally significant association was also observed between adherence to the exercise goal and percent weight change ( P = 0.07) ( Table 3 ).

The analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of Target, F (1, 17) = 3.66, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.18; however, we found no significant main effect of Cue, F (1, 17) = 0.75, p = 0.399, η p 2 = 0.04.

In addition, only a marginally significant correlation was found after being thanked (phase c), p = 0.07.

The difference in prevalence of distant metastases between FTC and HCC patients was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

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].

In the 15 min testing-onset group, 4 mg/kg significantly disrupted PPI, t (18) = 2.70, p = 0.02, and 1 and 2 mg/kg had a marginally significant effect, maximum t (18) = 1.95, p = 0.07.

A marginally significant indirect effect attributed to rostral MFC activation was seen with the relationship between PCE and TSI (Sobel Test statistic = 1.89; p = 0.07).

The results also revealed a marginally significant Time x Intervention interaction for depression scores, F (1, 56) = 3.41, p = 0.07.

There was a significant decrease in the number of patients that were hospitalized due to internalizing disorders from 2019 ( M ± SD = 22.3 ± 9.3 per month) to 2020 ( M ± SD = 16.8 ± 7.7; B = −5.5, 95% CI = −8.0 to −3.0, p = 0.0002) and a marginally significant increase in the number of restraints per month (2019: M ± SD = 2.8 ± 6.8, 2020: M ± SD = 9.0 ± 14.5; Z = −1.96, Rosenthal’s r = 0.36, p = 0.07).

Regarding the two pandemic-related beliefs, government efficacy accounted for a significant addition (0.8%) of the variance in PSU (Δ F = 4.82, p = 0.03) beyond the variance explained by demographic variables; in contrast, self-efficacy only explained a marginally significant increment (0.6%) of the variance in PSU (Δ F = 3.34, p = 0.07).

The ∆TDQ scores reached a marginally significant difference between the MB and NoMB groups (∆TDQ score: −1.2 and −2.7 in the MB and NoMB groups, respectively; p = 0.07) ( Table 2 ).

A repeated measures ANOVA of all observers’ data revealed a marginally significant effect of condition on MOT performance, F (2, 10) = 3.48, p = .07.

Multivariate analysis showed no significant associations of any of the variables studied with plasma voriconazole variability or treatment effectiveness, except a marginally significant relationship between normal or only slightly elevated CRP and adequate plasma drug concentrations (MLM, F = 3.22, p = 0.07).

In contrast, the congruity–valence interaction was marginally significant in the H-EC condition, F (1, 80) = 3.28, p = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.04.

Finally, Rank2AfterIncongruent fixations were less positive than Rank3AfterIncongruent fixations [1.16 μV; p < 0.05; main effect of Fixation: F (2, 28) = 3.39; p = 0.05], specifically in the ROI 3, ROI 4 and ROI 6 Fixation by ROI interaction marginally significant [ F (10, 140) = 2.25; p = 0.07], while no significant difference was observed with JustAfterIncongruent fixations.

Only a marginally significant main effect of emotional tone was found for PVA ( F (2, 67) = 2.68, p < 0.07).

For flexibility, there was further a three-fold interaction effect of tDCS condition, d ’delta90, and pre-tDCS score ( F (1,19) = 8.251, p = 0.010, p Eta 2 = 0.303) as well as marginally significant effects of d ’delta50 ( F (1,19) = 3.6986, p = 0.070, p Eta 2 = 0.163) and the interaction between tDCS condition, RTdelta90, and baseline values ( F (1,19) = 3.0695, p = 0.096, p Eta 2 = 0.139).