“marginally significant”

In relation to mania, only cumulative benzodiazepine doses showed significant between subjects effects ( F = 12.899, p = 0.001), while cumulative antihistamine doses were marginally significant ( F = 3.197, p = 0.078), both being higher in patients with higher mania scores.

The effect of children was significant or marginally significant for eating out, β = −0.143, 95% CI [−0.508, 0.027], p = 0.078; housework, β = −0.215, 95% CI [−0.584, −0.081], p = 0.010; physical exercises, β = 0.163, 95% CI [0.002, 0.330], p = 0.048; and watching videos, β = −0.208, 95% CI [−0.394, −0.050], p = 0.012.

In addition, a marginally significant interaction effect of SBPV × gender on AD risk was found ( p = 0.078).

Moreover, we performed an ANOVA on the changed rating (posttest minus pretest) of inappropriateness for strong violation scenarios, which revealed marginally significant condition effects, F (1,46) = 3.25, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.07, 95%CI [0.000,0.230] (see Figure 1 ).

Finally, participants who provided EEG data at the first versus second timepoint did not significantly differ by demographic characteristics or on the study variables ( p s > .38), except for a marginally significant difference in sex distribution across timepoints [χ 2 (1) = 3.11, p = .078].

Although we detected a marginally significant post-fledging period × fate × species effect (PBtest = 3.43, nsim =1000, P = 0.078), post-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that catbirds and wood thrushes used areas similarly between fates within pre- and post-fledging periods (t.ratios ranged between − 2.21 and 1.40, P > 0.35, in all cases).

The two subtypes also showed a separated tendency in the recurrence-free survival plot (log-rank test, marginally significant with p = 0.078) (Fig. 2a , right panel).

On the other hand, a GLM (with log-transformed detection distances as response variable, normal distribution and identity function) showed no differences between species (Wald κ 2 = 0.91, d f = 1, p = 0.327) nor an effect of flock size (Wald κ 2 = 1.48, d f = 1, p = 0.233), with a marginally significant effect of habitat (Wald κ 2 = 5.11, d f = 2, p = 0.078).

The effect of aphid clone was marginally significant (F (1,7) = 3.76, P = 0.078).

The correlation for the pseudoword trials was significant (r = 0.386, p = 0.024), and the correlation for the word trials was marginally significant (r = 0.306, p = 0.078). 4.

For task-related self-efficacy (see Figure 3 ), compared with T1 task performance, participants receiving positive feedback had improved levels of self-efficacy compared to those receiving negative feedback and those receiving control feedback at the second CPT, whereas the task self-efficacy levels of the subsequent two groups did not differ from each other at the second CPT. The Condition*Time interaction was marginally significant on intended effort ( p = 0.078), though Positive condition showed larger intended effort investment compared to Negative condition at the second CPT.

Kendall’s Tau correlations indicated marginally significant negative correlations between spatial pattern awareness level (Appendix B , question 3) and visuo-spatial NAD learning, τ(20) = -0.315, p = 0.078.

A marginally significant difference in the neoantigen scores between the responders and PD groups was observed (p-value = 0.078).

The Semantic relation × Sensory-motor relation interaction was also marginally significant [ F (1, 22) = 3.41, p = 0.078], but given its theoretical relevance we also explored the corresponding simple effects.

Additionally, greater reductions in overall perceived stress were observed for the intervention as compared to wait-list control group (though the unstandardized beta coefficient was marginally significant, p = .078, the standardized beta coefficient was statistically significant, β = -.29, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.01], p = .041).

Moreover, there was a marginally significant relationship with being connected and supported (LISD state 2; β = −0.10, SE = 0.05, p = 0.078).

After Bonferroni corrections, two marginally significant correlations were found: a positive correlation between medium beeps and the perceptual abilities subscale of Gold-MSI ( r = .344, p = .078), and a negative one between short balls and the emotions subscale ( r = .349, p = .072).

Furthermore, the analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of “position” ( F (1, 26) = 3.37, P = 0.078, ƞ p 2 = 0.12), with higher reaction times for the left side of stimulus presentation (524 ms ± 167) than for the right side of stimulus presentation (515 ms ± 164).

Regarding cooperation skills, the intervention had a marginally significant positive effect on increasing them among third grade boys (0.528, p = 0.078), whereas for the first graders the effect was slightly negative, but again not significantly different from zero (-0.328, p = 0.234).

There was a marginally significant interaction between LMIC immigrant x incarceration ( β = −.013, p = .078), indicating that immigrants from LMICs were somewhat less likely than native-born individuals to exhibit health declines following incarceration.

Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that SATB1-high group had a worse overall survival ( P =0.078, marginally significant).

−0.28% at week 12, respectively), and there was marginally significant placebo‐subtracted difference between the groups (−0.26% vs. −0.54% at week 12, respectively, p = .078) (Table 2 ).

The results revealed a marginally significant between-group difference (t = 1.78, p = 0.078, IC al 95% 0.18-3.33).

The main effect of AI thematic relevance was marginally significant, F (1, 373) = 3.13, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.008, indicating a trend for implicit AI topics to elicit greater dissonance than explicit topics, although the effect size was small.

For negative emotions, the analysis yielded a marginally significant effect of time ( p = 0.078) and a significant effect of story topic, F (4, 301) = 4.351; p = 0.002; η 2 p = 0.06, further qualified by the significant interaction between time and story topic, F (4, 301) = 9.248; p < 0.001; η 2 p = 0.11.