“marginally significant”

The difference between the low and control conditions was marginally significant ( p = .073), with estimates in the low condition higher than those in the control condition.

(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).

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 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.

In 2021, some correlation coefficients increased in magnitude, but were not statistically significant (marginally significant for Fl vuc , r s = − 0.446, p = 0.073 and C vuc , r s = − 0.443, p = 0.075).

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).

A similar tendency of DBP-change and MAP-change was found for imidapril (ACEI) treatment ( Figure 2C ), in which a marginally significant difference was achieved ( P = 0.073 and 0.075, respectively).

The beta-binomial mixed effect model showed that imitation accuracy in the neutral condition was lower in the ASG compared to the CG at a marginally significant level (p = 0.073) while imitation accuracy in the playful condition was similar in the ASG and the CG (p = 0.891).

Additionally, after controlling for the effects of perceived burdensomeness, suicide attempts at T1 and T2 positively predicted cyber-victimization at T2 and T3, respectively, but this cross-lagged effect from T1 to T2 was marginally significant ( p = .073).

The NLR at admission was higher in the critical group with a marginally significant difference (p=0.073).

The heterogeneity of the effects from this analysis based on N = 10 comparisons increased (I2 = 43%, moderate inconsistency [ 55 ]; Tau2 statistics for heterogeneity being marginally significant, p = .073).

After correction for multiple comparisons, “Production Occupations” remained significant in unadjusted models (p = 0.024) and was marginally significant in adjusted models ( p = 0.073).

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.

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).

in suburban schools among children aged 6-18 years also reported a marginally significant reduction in serum ferritin levels among girls compared to boys (p=0.073) [ 16 ].

On account of a marginally significant correlation between ND enhancement of supra-threshold connectivity of the alpha band and the ND-MF of postural fluctuations ( r = 0.307, p = 0.073), a further detailed correlation analysis was performed with consideration of the ND enhancement of the supra-threshold connectivity of the alpha band from the three key nodes (O 2 , P z , and Fp 2 ) ( Table 4 ; Figure 5B ).

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].

The ratio of CA to CDCA was marginally significant between the two groups ( p = 0.073, ratio = 1.56).

For RC (see Model 2 in Table 5 ), imitation of familiar signs predicted initial level, estimate = 0.01, 95% CI [0.004, 0.02], p = .003, and had a marginally significant effect on the linear slope, estimate = 0.0002, 95% CI [−0.00002, 0.0005], p = .073.

Saccadic reaction times A repeated measures ANOVA with condition (gap, overlap, baseline) as within subject factor and group (9-, 12-, and 15-year-old) as a between-subject factor revealed a main effect of group [ F (2,90) = 6.38; p < 0.01], a main effect of condition [ F (2,180) = 57.76; p < 0.0001], and a marginally significant interaction between group and condition [ F (4,180) = 2.18; p = 0.073].

In addition, we found a significant interaction between this polygenic component and our latent index of parental psychological control, β = −0.16, 95% CI [−0.04, −0.27], p = 0.007, as well as a marginally significant interaction with our latent index of parental autonomy support, β = 0.10, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.22], p = 0.073, on change in levels of adolescent social anxiety across 3 years.

When focal LC defect was included instead of VF MD, γPPA width was marginally significant (OR, 1.01; P = 0.073) ( Table 5 ).

While there was no difference between the noise-normalized pattern correlation and 1 for the near voxels ( t (9) = 1.942, p = 0.958, d = 0.614; corrected), the difference was marginally significant for the far voxels ( t (9) = 2.029, p = 0.073, d = 0.642; corrected), with a significant difference between the near and far voxels ( t (9) = 2.52, p = 0.033, d = 1.06).

The predicted social presence effect was also marginally significant, F (1, 55) = 3.34, p = .073, η 2 partial = 0.06, suggesting that participants in co-action ( M = 46.56%, SD = 10.49%) were more context sensitive than those who performed the task alone ( M = 39.86%, SD = 14.38%).

The significant or marginally significant three-way interaction in the left ( F 4, 72 = 2.243, P = 0.073) and right ROIs ( F 4, 72 = 3.308, P = 0.015) indicated that the somatotopy effect was modulated by both Effector cues and Word categories.