“marginally significant”

The overall comparison of coccinellid survival indices among materials produced a marginally significant result ( F = 1.903; 11,36 df; P = 0.072), and the LSD test resolved some significant differences ( P < 0.05) among means ( Fig. 1 ).

The RT analysis showed only a marginally significant effect of Set [ F (1,22) = 3.58, p = 0.072, η p 2 = 0.140], but a highly significant effect of Target [ F (1,22) = 62.45, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.739] a well as a highly significant interaction [ F (1,22) = 13.89, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.387].

The association of FPC1 with AD was marginally significant in females ( P = 0.072), corresponding to lower values of E1, E2 and SHBG in cases.

Attitude had a marginally significant negative effect on practice (β=−0.19, 95% CI: −0.39,0.01, p = 0.072).

Three of the four interaction terms yield insignificant coefficients, indicating that the manipulations were overall effective regardless of the participant’s reported level of BGC (as reported by [ 35 ]), with the exception of a marginally significant interaction for the essay prime in the expenditure model (p = .072).

A similar effect with greater relative left frontal activation in response to anger as compared to greater relative right frontal activation to pain was also observed at mid-frontal electrodes (F3, F4) where the difference between the frontal EEG alpha asymmetry scores in response to facial expressions of anger and pain was marginally significant, t (19) = 1.90, p = .072 (see Table 1 ).

The analysis revealed a marginally significant effect for this factor, t (38) = 1.851, p = .072, d = 0.290, showing a larger magnitude of collaborative inhibition at item recall versus source retrieval and indicating that the magnitude of this effect was sensitive to testing condition.

The difference between 2 × 2 and 4 × 4 trials was marginally significant for numerosity 20 ( t (19) = 1.90, p = 0.072), but did not approach significance for numerosity 27 ( t (19) = 1.72, p = 0.101).

The pattern observed was consistent with the above findings.The ANOVA analysis of mean PD revealed a marginally significant main effect that the PD in ASD group was larger than TD group (F 1,40 = 3.426, p = 0.072, η p 2 = 0.079), and a significant interaction (F 1,40 = 10.507, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.208), with post hoc tests showing that PD was larger in the ASD than TD group in the CF condition (t 42 = 3.046, p = 0.009, d = 0.941) but not in the EF condition (t 42 = 0.854, p = 0.444, d = 0.264), and the PD was larger when viewing CF condition than EF condition in ASD group (t 20 = 5.606, p < 0.001, d = 1.223) but not in TD group (t 22 = 0.719, p = 0.476, d = 0.150) (see Figure S4).

There was a marginally significant interaction between burn and year ( χ 2 = 3.23, df = 1, p = 0.072).

Correlations Between HAMD Scores and Cortical Activation The results of Pearson's correlation analysis showed that HAMD scores were positively correlated with the VFT-related Δβ (β post− β pre ) in channel 37 at a marginally significant level ( r = 0.344, FDR-corrected p = 0.072) in all the included patients ( Figure 6 ), as well as in ROI 1 ( r = 0.255, p = 0.087), but not in single-channel 26, 27, or 28 (FDR-corrected p > 0.05).

Urbanization level had a positive linear relationship (p < 0.0001) and a marginally significant negative quadratic relationship with Ae. aegypti adult presence in a house (p = 0.072).

While the associations with insects (p = 0.051) were marginally significant, the associations with algae (p = 0.072), fungi (p = 0.1525), mollusks (p = 0.355), inanimate environment (p = 0.4165), nematodes (p = 0.5072), fruits and vegetables (p = 0.5176), bacteria (p = 0.783) and mammals (p = 0.8668) were not statistically significant.

The distributional analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between HighNo and Bin2 (β = −0.22, z = −1.8, p = 0.072).

β-diversity profiles in the TWK10 group after administration showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.072, by unweighted UniFrac distance) to those in the Control group after administration ( Figure 3 C), while those in the TWK10-hk group differed significantly from those in the Control group (PERMANOVA, P = 0.036, by NMDS with unweighted UniFrac metric; P = 0.072 by unweighted U

To follow up, we first established that a model constraining the regression coefficients to be equal between groups does not worsen model fit relative to the model where all parameters are freely estimated, although this difference in model fit was marginally significant ( p = .072).

Effect of geographical distance on beta diversity after controlling for environmental variables The observed partial correlation coefficients of beta diversity with geographical distance (coordination) after controlling environmental heterogeneity were significant for total bryophytes ( r = .1493, p < .001), total mosses ( r = .1432, p < .001), liverworts ( r = .090, p < .02), pleurocarpous mosses ( r = .1257, p < .005), and marginally significant for acrocarpous mosses ( r = .0471, p = .072) (Table 3 ).

The PGLMM model again had a slightly lower slope, likely due to the inclusion of within‐species variation, which had a marginally significant effect ( ß = −0.261, p = 0.072).

Our interaction analysis suggested that there were marginally significant interaction between days in cohort and gender on pituitary heights ( P = 0.072).

A two-way comparison using the Bonferroni method showed that external locus of control was significantly stronger in the death acceptance group (M = 412.73, SD = 106.14) than in the bargaining group (M = 503.23, SD = 195.13, p < 0.05, 95% CI = [−177.38, −3.62]) and marginally significant compared to the death avoidance group (M = 496.43, SD = 247.39, p = 0.072, 95% CI = [−172.51, 5.10]), with no significant difference in self-control between the bargaining and death avoidance groups. 3.4.

Extraversion was a marginally significant positive predictor in both the second, β = 0.12, SE = 0.04, p = 0.072, and the third, β = 0.11, SE = 0.04, p = 0.088, steps.

Intra‐hemispheric strength showed a marginally significant correlation with the SRS‐2 T‐score ( R = 0.12, p = 0.072, FDR‐adjusted), while clustering coefficient ( R = 0.15, p = 0.038, FDR‐adjusted) and global efficiency ( R = 0.14, p = 0.038, FDR‐adjusted) were significantly and positively correlated with the VABS communication subscale.

As predicted, there was a larger decrease in blood pressure in the disconfirming confederate condition relative to the confirming confederate condition, in the post-confederate-reaction period from minutes 19–24 (-1.09 mmHg/minute vs -0.19 mmHg/minute), a marginally significant difference, B = -0.90, z = -1.80, p = 0.072.

The more participants valued HAP over LAP (at +2SD of Participant Ideal Affect [HAP-LAP]), the less rTPJ activity occurred in response to excited versus calm recipients, although this result was marginally significant, Estimate = −0.02, SE = 0.01, t (3398) = −1.80, P = 0.072, bootstrapped ( n = 10 000) 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.00].

The interaction between the factors ROI and Group was marginally significant ( F (8,240) = 2.41, p = 0.072, η p 2 : 0.074) suggesting overall quite comparable regional variations across groups except for possibly greater AVGPs recruitment in the inferior frontal gyrus.