“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant main effect of question type, F (1, 69) = 3.26, P = 0.075, η p 2 = 0.05, a significant main effect of affect, F (2, 69) = 3.33, P = 0.042, η p 2 = 0.09, and a significant interaction between both factors, F (2, 69) = 3.74, P = 0.029, η p 2 = 0.10.

Our validation tests found significant evidence supporting introgression from the outcrosser to the selfer at S22 ( P = 0.029) and marginally significant evidence at site SM ( P = 0.075).

The differences were marginally significant at activation (5476.9 vs. 6044.5, p = 0.0751) but became highly significant at 3–6 months (5004.5 vs. 6540.7, p < 0.0001) and ≥ 1 year (4916.1 vs. 6044.4, p = 0.0120).

We found a marginally significant effect of onset probability for valid cues (mean Δ proportion correct = 0.0276, t (6) = 2.15, two-tailed p = 0.0753), but no evidence for an impact of onset probability for invalid cues (mean Δ proportion correct = − 0.0117, t (6) = − 1.08, two-tailed p = 0.3214).

There was a marginally significant increase in theta-band phase synchronization ( P = 0.0755) after the 8-week MBCT, and we further observed that the markedly increased theta-band phase synchronizations were mainly located in the right hemisphere ( P < 0.05, FDR corrected; Figure 2 ).

Compared to the HCC tissues, we also found the methylation levels of CpG 7 tend to be further decreased in the PVTT tissues and the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.0756).

In terms of peak displacement, the difference observed between static and dynamic expressions (1.33 cpf) was marginally significant [95% CI (−1.66, 1.66), p = 0.0759].

Likewise, there was a marginally significant relationship between rural area residency (OR: 0.88; P = 0.076) and depression (OR: 0.74; P = 0.087) with short sleep duration.

Arousal and valence were correlated ( r = 0.18, p < 0.001), but surprisingly, arousal did not correlate with any other variables ( p s > 0.248), however the association between arousal and the probability of conception was marginally significant ( r = 0.05, p = 0.076).

Basic Choice There was a marginally significant group effect, t (43) = 1.82, p = 0.076, indicating that a higher proportion (56.5%) of the IGD group preferred risky choices than the HC group (48.2%).

Similar to the occurrence of ASE, being frail was a significant risk factor for not fasting during the entire Ramadan period, while older age was marginally significant, p = 0.076.

Importantly, there was also a marginally significant three-way interaction between self-status, other-status, and offer level, F (1,92) = 3.22, p = 0.076, η p 2 = 0.03.

When the RCTs were stratified according to the duration of supplementation, there was no significant effect in the subsets of studies lasting <8 weeks (WMD: −2.18 mm Hg, 95% CI: −5.00, 0.64, P =0.130), while a marginally significant reducing effect was observed in trials with ≥8 weeks of follow‐up (WMD: −3.57 mm Hg, 95% CI: −7.51, 0.37, P =0.076).

43.5%), with a marginally significant difference likely attributed to the small sample size of the study (p = 0.076).

Furthermore, a survival analysis revealed a marginally significant difference in overall survival between patients with early-stage LSCC and those with late-stage disease (P=0.076, log-rank test).

The LMM on the (inverse) RT revealed a non-significant main effect of Group (χ 2 (2) = 0.67, p = 0.716), a significant main effect of Location (χ 2 (2) = 17.95, p < 0.001), and a marginally significant interaction between Group and Location (χ 2 (4) = 8.46, p = 0.076).

However, there was a marginally significant difference between the two groups on the overall MoCA score [ t (103) =1.79, p = .076], and hence, the overall MoCA score was controlled as a covariate for further analyses.

The three‐way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ROI, F (2.07,47.55) = 8.50, p < .001, a marginally significant interaction effect between contrast type and ROI, F (2.76,63.58) = 2.46, p = .076, and critically a significant interaction effect between complexity and ROI, F (2.90,66.59) = 2.77, p = .050; all other effects were not statistically significant ( p s > .21).

Other interactions with these two factors were also not significant, except the marginally significant T2 Side × Lag × Number of Distractors interaction ( F (2, 80) = 2.7, p = 0.076, η 2 = 0.06), which reflects the slightly decreased LVF advantage at Lag 5 when the number of distractors was reduced (T2 Side × Number of Distractors for Lag 5 only: F (1, 40) = 4.0, p = 0.051; LVF vs.

False alarms Finally, our analysis of false alarm rates (response errors made to face fragments) revealed a marginally significant effect of participant age (F (2, 53) = 2.71, p = 0.076, partial η 2 = 0.093).

Follow-up analyses showed the expected anterior distribution of the effect, as it was restricted to frontal sites, F(1,16) = 11.769, p = .003, η2 = .424 (marginally significant at central, F(1,16) = 3.592, p = .076, η2 = .183, and parietal sites, F(1,16) = 3.604, p = .076, η2 = .184).

However, this association became marginally significant after adjusting for confounders (aRR = 1.56; 95% CI, 0.95–2.54; P = 0.076).

Group V showed significant improvements in the processing speed ( P = 0.048) and working memory ( P = 0.048) composites as well as marginally significant improvements in the executive function ( P = 0.076) and COGSTAT ( P = 0.076) composites.

However, these strong correlations mainly came from the similarities between Canadian parents and children’s responses, with a strong correlation for the foreground accounts, r (22) = .82, p < .001, and a marginally significant correlation for the background accounts, r (22) = .39, p = .076.

A paired t -test comparing the two action effect conditions revealed a marginally significant difference between the effect and the no effect condition: two-tailed t(60) = 1.81, p = 0.076, d = 0.23 (see Fig. 2 ).