“marginally significant”

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

Our comparative analysis of the boy group ( n = 16) and the girl ( n = 16) group demonstrated marginally significant difference (independent t -test: t 30 = 1.82, p = 0.078; Cohen's d = 0.64, medium effect size), with the boy group showing higher values (1.80 ± 0.66 vs. 1.54 ± 0.63).

pylori eradication was negatively correlated with changes in all the metabolic parameters except TC (p=0.078, marginally significant), and ASM was negatively correlated with changes in DBP, LDL, and TC ( Table 6 ).

For the compartment preference data the main effect of AGE was marginally significant ( F 1,41 = 3.28, P = 0.078) and a significant main effect of GENOTYPE was observed ( F 1,41 = 7.50, P = 0.009).

The interaction between expressions and gender reached marginally significant, F (2, 44) = 2.698, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.454.

In addition, the Effort by Group by Capacity three-way interaction produced a marginally significant effect, F (2.527, 101.063) = 2.45, MSe = 0.039, p = 0.078, η 2 p = 0.058.

The three way interaction Group by Disorder Relevance by Stimulus Set was marginally significant [ F (1, 144) = 3.154, p = 0.078].

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).

For switchers who were not offered a choice of deductible, we observe a decrease in spending one year after switching for total and medical spending (marginally significant at p = 0.078 and p = 0.073, respectively).

Furthermore, the difference between novel metaphoric and anomalous word dyads was marginally significant over midline electrodes ( p = .078).

There is, however, a marginally significant difference between the treatment and control groups for storage chemical use (p-value = 0.078).

We found statistically significant correlations between age and relational support at 14 years of age (r = − 0.05; p = 0.021), whereas the correlation was marginally significant for relational support at 12 years ( p = 0.078) and relational tensions at 14 years of age ( p = 0.054).

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

group emotion had a marginally significant multivariate effect, F (3,119) = 2.33, p = 0.078, η p 2 = 0.055, although none of its univariate effects was significant.

In contrast, we found a non-significant deviation for the trial group, d = 0.05, p = 0.420, and only a marginally significant deviation for the table group, d = 0.06, p = 0.078.

For urinary (u) C3M, the overall linear mixed model was marginally significant (p = 0.078).

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

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.

During the observational study, honeybees showed a marginally significant 32% increase in abundance in burn versus control sites (p = 0.078).

Differences in idea flexibility (range of idea categories) and idea originality (novelty of ideas) also favored the no real-time feedback condition, though these were marginally significant ( p = 0.078 and p = 0.067, respectively).

After simultaneously adding the sociodemographic variables, the resulting model was marginally significant (Model 2: F (11,526) = 1.66, p = 0.078) and produced a marginal increase in the explained variance ( ∆R 2 = 0.030, F (7) = 5.47, p = 0.087).

In this study, the improvement percentage regarding the number of surgical procedures showed high suspicion (marginally significant) for cases of only a single unilateral procedure compared with cases of multiple procedures (p = 0.078) while bilateral vs. multiple and bilateral vs. unilateral were not different.

Meanwhile, the initiation and activity of the Korea Suicide Prevention Center, one of the control variables, was marginally significant (t=1.93, p=0.078), and the other control variable, the suicide rate of Gyeonggi Province, was not significant (t=1.32, p=0.210).

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).

The absolute ΔhsTnT did not differ significantly between the groups with active and passive fixation leads (p = 0.506), while the relative ΔhsTnT showed marginally significant difference (p = 0.078), as presented in Table 1 .