“marginally significant”

This pattern seems to be due to the larger size of males that take care of their offspring and not to changes in the size of females, as indicated by the marginally significant results of the pairwise comparison of the mean male size for species with paternal care versus maternal care ( Z = 1.628, P = 0.073).

Similarly, the corresponding ANOVA of the N170 peak amplitude revealed a significant main effect of infant facial expression [ F (2,124) = 5.55, p = 0.008, η 2 = 0.082], with statistically significant larger amplitudes for joy infant faces (-8.23 ± 0.88 μV) than for crying ones (-7.79 ± 0.85 μV) ( p < 0.001) and marginally significant larger amplitudes than for neutral ones (-7.90 ± 0.86 μV) ( p = 0.073).

Drug shortage showed marginally significant associations (β = 0.219, 95% CI [0.980–1.582], p = 0.073).

Among the PDL1 low advanced breast cancers, CSPG4 high level was also a marginally significant risk factor for poor OS ( P = 0.0730) ( Figure 5D ).

The four factor ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction effect of Culture×Face×Threat (F(1,19) = 3.616, p = 0.073), as the interaction of Face×Threat was more salient in Chinese subjects (F(1,19) = 58.469, p<0.001) than in American subjects (F(1,19) = 1.911, p = 0.182).

Statistical analysis revealed a marginally significant effect of Condition ( F (1,19) = 3.61, p = .073), a main effect of Region ( F (4,76) = 80.73, p <.001), and an interaction between these factors ( F (4,76) = 5.93, p = .002).

Further, marginally significant result can be observed in lung squamous cell carcinoma and colorectal cancer (p = 0.073, below).

The interaction between Model Type and Pain Level was marginally significant [ F (2, 70) = 3.0, p = 0.073].

These one-way ANOVAs demonstrated a marginally significant difference between the three completion groups in the RAVLT Total Learning and RAVLT Interference Cost measures: TotalLearningF (2/34) = 2.83, p = 0.073; InterferenceCostF (2, 34) = 3.06, p = 0.06.

Following up a marginally significant interaction Cognitive Demand * ADHD on target-N2 amplitude ( F 1,68 = 3.323; p = .073; η 2 p = .047) showed that children with ADHD (ADHD-only and ADHD+autism) had reduced target- N2 during high-demand trials ( M = −2.987 μV; SE = 0.344 μV), compared to children without ADHD (NT and autism-only: M = −4.043 μV; SE = 0.387 μV; p = .048).

However, the late EBQI-PACT practices showed a marginally significant difference in EE by wave 3 of 6.23 points lower than comparison practices ( p = .073).

(2024) , the accuracy data analysis in this study revealed only main effects of prime type, χ 2 (1) = 21.64, p < 0.001, and translation direction, χ 2 (1) = 53.45, p < 0.001, with the accuracy rates being significantly higher for the targets preceded by translation primes (2.29% difference) and in the L2–L1 direction (6.39% difference), as well as a marginally significant main effect of the number of translations, χ 2 (1) = 3.22, p = 0.073, with a higher accuracy rate for OTPs (1.18% difference).

The group difference in response error after the fifth session was marginally significant (F (1, 14) = 3.750, p = 0.073, η p 2 = 0.211).

The paired t-tests showed an opposite, marginally significant pattern of recall effects in the two tasks, with the aphasic patients recalling longer chunks in the sung than spoken task [t(13) = 2.0, p = .073] and the non-aphasic patients recalling longer chunks in the spoken than sung task [t(15) = 1.8, p = .097].

An independent samples t -test showed that the difference between beginners and intermediate learners from native speakers was marginally significant; beginners tended to be less native-like than intermediate learners ( t (10.041) = 2.003, p = .073).

A significant main effect of age group (F(1,12) = 7.18; p < 0.05) and a marginally significant interaction between Aβ group and age (F(1,12) = 3.84; p = 0.073) was found with aged dogs performing more poorly than young.

The interaction between predation regime, ontogenetic stage, and the index variable was marginally significant ( P = 0.073), so the trajectories were compared with the phenotypic change vector analysis.

The interaction between condition and group was marginally significant, F (1,47) = 2.38, p = 0.073, η p 2 = 0.048.

Regarding financial circumstances, there was a marginally significant difference between groups in PIFS scores ( t 96.05 =1.81; P =.073), with the intervention group reporting slightly higher financial stress (mean 49.60, SD 14.67) than the control group (mean 44.10, SD 16.24), though this difference did not reach statistical significance at the conventional alpha level.

However, the exercise group showed a 31% increase in VO 2 max that was marginally significant t (6) = 2.17, p = 0.073, suggesting that the exercise intervention was successful at improving cardiorespiratory fitness (see Table 3 ).

The difference between the highly systematic condition and the unsystematic condition was clearly significant ( p < .001) even after controlling for reading time, whereas the difference between the highly systematic and the somewhat systematic condition was marginally significant ( p = .073).

We observed a similar pattern to recognition accuracy, with higher A’ on the no-sauna group (A′ = 0.903) compared to the sauna group (A′ = 0.886), although this effect was marginally significant [F(1,66) = 3.318, p = 0.073].

Further investigations examined whether there was an interaction of pairing condition and loneliness group on fear learning, with a 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA (pairing condition x loneliness group) revealing a significant effect of pairing condition (F (1,30) = 5.752, p = 023, η ρ 2 = 0.161, Cohen's f = 0.44), such that there was higher conditional fear responding in the safety signal condition, and a marginally significant interaction (F (1,30) = 3.445, p = .073, η ρ 2 = 0.103, Cohen's f = 0.34).

After encoding the session factor with dummy contrast with the first session as reference, we calculated an RM-ANOVA on Z -scores which indicated only a marginally significant main effect of session ( F = 2.47, df = 41.05, p = 0.073).

At the moment of the interview, CO had a significantly lower prevalence of hypertension (− 52%; p=.006), hypercholesterolemia (− 44%; p=.025) and a marginally significant lower prevalence of COPD (− 61%; p=.073) and osteoporosis (− 48%; p=.051).