“marginally significant”

For the connective ALTHOUGH, we observed a marginally significant interaction between factors, F (1,35) = 3.44, p = 0.072, η p 2 = 0.09 such that, for alternative trials, responses were faster in the left-to-right direction than in the right-to-left direction, p = 0.025 ( M = 481 vs. 537 ms).

We applied Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the number of high performance blocks for the two response buttons, and we found that the number of high performance blocks was significantly higher for the left button than for the right button in the analysis of blockSensitivity (U = 528.50, p = 0.048) and that the difference was marginally significant for the blockSpecificity (U = 545.00, p = 0.072).

≥2) were found to be marginally significant factors affecting OS (age, p = 0.072; comorbidity index, p = 0.081).

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.

Interestingly and consistently, rs3761581 from the best overall model in males conferred a marginally significant role on the development of CAD (OR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.57–1.02; P = 0.072) after adjusting for age, type 2 diabetes mellitus, BMI and SBP, and in females, interaction probability of rs7119375 and rs9943582 from the best overall model reached statistical significance (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81–0.95; P = 0.02), these findings further validating that from MDR method.

harsh or dismissive) ways of coping ( t (25) = 2.21, p = 0.037) and a marginally significant increase in the use of supportive strategies ( t (25) = 1.88, 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].

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

The interaction between T1 resting RSA and social adversity was marginally significant for T2 internalizing ( b = -1.08, t = 1.82, p = 0.072) ( Table 4 ).

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).

Consistent with the finding in Taraban ( 2011 ), the Country × Belief × Level interaction was marginally significant [ F (3, 715) = 2.34, p = .072].

Economic status was marginally significant ( 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).

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 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).

The main effect of set size was significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 24.81, p < 0.001]; the main effect of complexity was significant [ F (1, 61) = 8.68, p = 0.005]; the main effect of interference was not significant [ F (1, 61) = 2.09, p = 0.153]; the interaction between set size and complexity was marginally significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 2.37, p = 0.072]; the interaction between set size and interference was not significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 0.60, p = 0.618]; the interaction between complexity and interference was not significant [ F (1, 61) = 0.93, p = 0.339]; the interaction between these 3 variance was not significant [ F (3.02, 184.14) = 0.73, p = 0.535].

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 ).

No haplotypes showed a possible ET association ( Table II ) though the C-C haplotype of rs1801131-rs1801133 showed a marginally significant association with ET ( P = 0.072).

The tests for spatial correlations between genetic diversity and species richness revealed a significant positive correlation for Cytb genetic diversity ( r = 0.728, P = 0.008), and a marginally significant correlation for D-loop genetic diversity ( r = 0.320, P = 0.072) ( Fig. 1, A and B ).

IBI intercept was a marginally significant predictor in the overall model, F (2,48) = 2.78, p = 0.072.

The main effect of the scalp distribution type was marginally significant, F (2, 32) = 3.360, p = 0.072, η p 2 = 0.174 ( Figure 6 ).

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant interaction for both block and group ( F (10,330) = 1.733, p = 0.072).

Notably, all four Cy-TB-positive cases (100%) had at least one comorbid condition, compared to 67% (n=61) of negative cases, representing a marginally significant trend (χ2=3.247, p=0.072).

There was a marginally significant trend between the mortality rates and the median reduction rates of oesophageal manometry (r = 0.352, p = 0.072; Figure 1 B). 3.1.3.

Testing-naïve older adults showed a tendency for higher recognition of near- than far-distance objects, particularly for context-atypical and unfamiliar objects, with this pattern marginally significant (p = .072) for the unfamiliar objects ( M near = .73, .85, and .79 for context-typical, context-atypical, and unfamiliar; M far = .71, .77, and .60, respectively).