“marginally significant”

The interaction between Age and Time was marginally significant, F (1, 404) = 3.28, p = .071, ηρ2 =0.01.

Mouth breathing showed a marginally significant association that attenuated after full adjustment (P = 0.071).

As a result, the protective effect of AICs against overall infection was significant in model 1 (HR 0.18; CI 95% 0.04-0.87; p = 0.016) and marginally significant in model 2 (HR 0.25; CI 95% 0.05-1.29; p = 0.071).

Instead, we observed a marginally significant main effect of expectation [F(1,10) = 4.095, p = 0.071]; self-reported intrinsic motivation scores were higher under high-expectation conditions.

Conception‐enhancing methods were marginally significant (aOR = 3.051, 95% CI: −0.097 to 2.328, p = 0.071).

The respective linear regression revealed a marginally significant effect of word count, β = 0.00075, 95% CI = [– 0.000066, 0.0016], p = .071.

Although the number of saccades was numerically smaller for spaced sentences (mean: 17.74 saccades for spaced, and 18.11 for unspaced), regression analysis revealed only a marginally significant difference (β = −0.447, SE = 0.247, p = 0.071).

Abnormal lymph node on ultrasound was marginally significant ( p = 0.071).

The number of retrieved lymph nodes and tumor differentiation were marginally significant between the two groups (P=0.071 and 0.053, respectively).

Results of Combined rsMRI and DAT-SPECT Data Analyses In partial correlation analyses only controlling for covariates of no interest but not for shared variance between DAT striatal binding and SFC, the UPRDS I subscale showed a marginally significant correlation with SFC total regions ( r = -0.22, p = 0.071) ( Figure 3A ).

Adding the CBCL peer relations scale to the CBCL Total problem scale regression model led to a decrease in β from 1.75 to 0.97, remaining marginally significant ( β = 0.97, p = 0.071, CI − 0.08 to 2.01, R 2 = 0.30), indicating that CBCL total problem T scores are influenced by the peer relations scale, but remain higher in older presenters compared to younger presenters.

In contrast, the high PCL-R group exhibited a marginally significant negative correlation between Major Drug Use and DRUG > FOOD reactivity within the right insula r = -0.38, p = 0.071 and left caudate nucleus, r = -0.37, p = 0.077.

Further correlation analysis showed that there was a marginally significant negative correlation between Ruminococcaceae UCG-013 and Bacteroides (Spearman, R = − 0.2, p = 0.071).

sad: p = .009), and the sad over neutral comparison remains marginally significant after the Bonferroni post-hoc correction (p = .071).

For the arousal ratings, a three-way ANOVA revealed the significant main effect of stimulus type, indicating higher arousal ratings for normal than for anti- expressions, F (1,36) = 57.41, p = 0.000, η 2 p = 0.615, and marginally significant main effect of group, F (1,36) = 3.47, p = 0.071, η 2 p = 0.088.

Poor oral hygiene showed a marginally significant association in both models (univariate OR = 1.79, p = 0.071; multivariate OR = 1.85, p = 0.060) ( Table 6 ). 4.

However, stratified analysis indicated that the PFS of patients with stages III and IV CSCLC showed marginally significant difference between the TEP/TCE and EP/CE groups (19.5 vs . 7.6 months; P =0.071).

The SOI did not have a significant trend over the full monitoring period that might lead to a trend in SST, but there has been a marginally significant (p = 0.071) trend in the SOI over the satellite era (Fig.

Furthermore, within the trauma-exposed group, higher prefrontal GABA levels retained a marginally significant association with reduced CBF levels after excluding four potential outliers (β = −0.240, P = 0.071).

On microscopy, larger tumors more frequently demonstrated microvascular invasion (p=.038), and major vascular invasion, although marginally significant (p=.071).

A marginally significant three-way interaction effect of Time, Measurement Site and Condition F (2, 21) = 3.01, p = 0.071, η p 2 = 0.22 was found.

The main effect of feedback was marginally significant, with increased switching observed after the absence of reward compared to receiving a reward (23.1% and 21.3%), F (1, 51) = 3.39, p = 0.071, η p 2 = 0.06.

Further, the difference between L1 Mismatch and control was marginally significant for AHE [ b = 0.71, χ 2 (1) = 7.57, p = 0.071] but not for NE [ b = 0.50, χ 2 (1) = 0.00, p = 1.00].

Subsequent bivariate regression analyses (results not shown) revealed that the racial/ethnic disparities in pollution exposure displayed in Table 2 were statistically significant for African Americans ( t = 3.32, p < 0.002) and marginally significant for Hispanics ( t = −1.85, p < 0.071).

The rmANOVA of the frequency values showed a marginally significant effect of the interaction of group and hand [ F (4, 15) = 2.694, p = 0.071, η 2 = 0.418; Table 3 ].