“marginally significant”

A two-way rmANOVA showed marginally significant effects of time (F = 3.38, p = 0.076) and interaction of time × condition (F = 2.70, p = 0.084), presented in Figure 4 .

In the analysis of RAPM_set 1, a marginally significant difference between the pretest and posttest ( p = 0.076, PP = 0.96) and a significant difference between the pretest and the follow-up session ( p = 0.047, PP = 0.97) were found only for the atDCS+WMT group, with no significant group differences in each moment ( p = 0.12, PP = 0.92).

Interestingly, we found a marginally significant difference between the subclinical and HC groups in the invariance test of network structure (M = 0.304, p = 0.076).

Noteworthy, in the low-KmO 2 app group, the highest COA peak was achieved in response to the second O 2 addition (10 μM of cumulative [O 2 ]) rather than to the first in six out of seven calibrations (marginally significant difference between 5 and 10 μM O 2 responses, p=0.076, paired t -test).

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.

Hypertension was shown to be a marginally significant predictor of mortality ( p = 0.076) (Table 6 in Supplementary File 1 ).

The expression of LfR protein in the subventricular zone (SVZ) of the high LF group was 42% and 38% higher than that of the low LF group and the control group, respectively, but the overall statistical analysis between the groups was marginally significant (main effect p = 0.076).

The critical interaction of Shape and Gesture was marginally significant ( F [1, 15] = 3.63; p = 0.076; η 2 = 0.195).

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).

In Block 2, by contrast, infants in the No Label condition exhibited more looking at the low-variability part than those in either the Label (marginally significant: F (1,47) = 3.298, p = .076) or the Visual-only condition (approaching significance: F (1,47) = 2.667, p = .109).

The main effect of neuroticism on the hands-on-steering-wheel time was marginally significant [ F (1,30) = 3.310, 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.

Consistently, significant positive correlations were found between PANSS-G and the Frontal-Inf-Orb-R (r = 0.55, p = 0.006), PANSS-G and the Rolandic-Oper-R (r = 0.44, p = 0.047), and marginally significant correlation between PANSS-N and the Rolandic-Oper-R (r = 0.38, p = 0.076).

However, there was a marginally significant positive relationship between perceived pandemic threat at Time 1 and SWB at Time 2 ( β = 0.03, s.e. = 0.02, p = .076).

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.

Nearly all these estimated genetic correlations are substantially larger than 0 ( H 01 : ρ g = 0) but less than 1 ( H 02 : ρ g = 1) ( Figure 1A ); the only exception is the genetic correlation of HIP between males and females, which is marginally significant ( ρ ^ g = 0.919 and P = 0.076 for H 02 ).

A 2 (task) × 2 (compatibility) ANOVA showed a marginally significant effect of task, F (1, 39) = 3.31, p = .076, partial η 2 = .08, which indicated that responses that slightly fewer errors were made in the go/no-go than in the two-choice task.

However, only a marginally significant difference was found in the CST group ( p = 0.076), with a small effect size (r = 0.348).

For established entrepreneurs (Table 3 ), increased sleep duration exhibits a positive and marginally significant (p = 0.076) coefficient.

For PANSS negative score, we found a significant decrease from baseline to follow-up in both groups, but a marginally significant group × time interaction indicating a trend toward a greater decrease in the intervention group ( F = 3.46, p = 0.076; Figure 2 and Table 2 ).

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).

In the GB, a marginally significant, positive relationship was observed between Korarchaeota abundance and temperature (rho = 0.406, p = 0.076, n = 20) further showing that the prime habitat of Korarchaeota is at or near high temperature spring sources.

A significant interaction effect between Group and Emotion revealed that ALEX, as compared to NonALEX, showed significantly stronger FAA in the anger condition [ F (1,46) = 4.302, P = 0.044, η p 2 = 0.086, 95% CI: 0.020, 1.307], and a marginally significant weaker FAA in the sadness condition [ F (1,46) = 3.297, P = 0.076, η p 2 = 0.067, 95% CI: −1.578, 0.081].

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).

We also compared memory accuracy within the same arousal condition, and found that there was a marginally significant difference in d-prime for objects in the cued location compared to the uncued location in the CS+ trials ( p = 0.076).