“marginally significant”

1 C), a marginally significant difference between low trust and middle trust groups ( k = 0.1424, P = 0.0783), but not between middle trust and high trust groups ( k = 0.09, P = 0.5084).

There was marginally significant variation in seasonal data for male and female hunter flies in 2021 (F 9,34 = 1.95, p = 0.0783; F 9,34 = 1.98, p = 0.0734, respectively; Figure 3 B).

The frequency of Bifidobacterium increased at 2.1 MPa and decreased after decompression. We noted marginally significant changes in the frequencies of Clostridium cluster IV and cluster XVIII (p=0.0784 and 0.0757, respectively).

Fraction, on the other hand, had a significant effect on germination time ( χ 2 2,216.1 = 13.93, P = 0.0009) and a marginally significant effect on germination rate ( χ 2 2,216.1 = 5.09, P = 0.0784).

There was also a marginally significant sex*genotype interaction [F(1,69)=33.19, P=0.0784] with the highest expression levels in APOE4 -positive females for the HIP (Extended data Figure 3).

Intra‐location variability was detected within the French populations (Custom contrast; genotypes A and B, p = 0.0041, genotypes A and D, p < 0.0001, Table S2 ), while a marginally significant difference was found among the US genotypes (Custom contrast, genotypes E and F, p = 0.0785, Table S2 ).

There was however, a marginally significant interacting effect of virus infection and aphid infestation (virus x aphid: F 1,22 = 3.403, p -value = 0.0786).

Compared to Wistar rats, WKY rats exhibited lower levels of 5-HT in the hippocampus (marginally significant, p= 0.0789) and colon, reduced mRNA expression of TPH1 and IDO1 in the colon, while increased mRNA expression of TPH1 in the ileum.

Via this approach, the current results align with previous work as a significant difference between the 1:1 (−0.95 ± 0.75 dB) and 1:3 (−1.05 ± 0.78 dB) condition ( p = 0.019), and a marginally significant difference between the 1:1 and 3:1 (−1.03 ± 0.80 dB) condition ( p = 0.079) was present, whereas the difference between the 1:3 and 3:1 condition was not significant ( t =−0.590 p = 0.555) ( Appendix B , Figure A3 ).

However, when the partial Mantel tests were conducted separately for mainland and island populations, there was no significant correlation among mainland population ( P = 0.27, r = 0.07), but there was marginally significant correlation among island populations ( P = 0.079, r = 0.49) ( Supplementary Figure S3 ).

The interaction between training and training condition (individuation/categorization) is marginally significant F (1, 19) = 3.44, p = 0.079 and equivalent to the behavioral training effect reported in [15] .

The analysis showed no main effect of “referent position” (χ2(1) = 0.41, p = .521, d = 0.14), and only a marginally significant main effect of “dot position” (χ2(1) = 3.09, p = .079, d =-0.04), reflecting faster lexical decisions when maintaining the “bottom” shape in memory than when maintain a “top” shape.

The association between environmental attitudes and behavior was marginally significant, F (1, 138) = 3.13, p = 0.079, η p 2 = 0.022, meaning that there was a trend for participants with higher levels of environmental attitudes to select environment-friendly options when printing (Cohen’s d = 0.30).

On multivariable Cox-proportional hazard models, emergency surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 2.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 7.00; p=0.027) was the only significant and independent predictor of the major adverse outcomes (death and valve-related complications) while the baseline hemoglobin level was a marginally significant factor associated with the adverse outcomes (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.03 by 1 g/dL increment; p=0.079).

The combination of composites and legumes showed negative PSFs with marginally significant effect (95% CI −0.55 to −0.03, p = 0.079) while grasses and legumes combinations showed neutral effect (95% CI −0.20 to −0.26, p = 0.81).

There was a marginally significant trend for a decreasing female bias over the six time periods in the control group (Two-tailed Fisher’s exact test: P = 0.079; Fig. 3B ), a pattern that has been noted for other parasitoids that reproduce via symbiont-mediated parthenogenesis ( 37 ).

Similarly to yield, statistically significant differences in protein purity were only detected between protein extracts from non-defatted and combination-defatted ( p = 0.0019), SFE-defatted ( p = 0.018) protein extracts, and a marginally significant difference between non-defatted and oil press-defatted seed flour ( p = 0.079).

When these two variables were added as additional covariates, neither emerged as a significant predictor of quality of life over and above the other covariates (education level was marginally significant; b=−0.057, p=0.079) and the results were substantively identical.

For the parietal P1, the main effect of emotion type was marginally significant, F (2, 34) = 3.00, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.150.

The model was marginally significant, χ 2 = 5.07, df = 2, p = 0.079.

The HDP-PRS was significantly associated with incident ASCVD across all MetS subgroups and consistently across lifestyle groups, though marginally significant in the unfavorable lifestyle group ( P = 0.079) (Supplementary Tables 10 and 11 ).

Analysis of high spans (OSPAN > 50, N = 9) revealed a trend towards a spatial by feature cueing interaction, F(1, 8) = 3.137, p = .114, η 2 = .282, with a marginally significant orientation cuing effect at validly cued spatial locations, F(1, 8) = 4.039, p = .079, η 2 = .336, but not at invalidly cued locations, F(1, 8) = 1.827, p = .213, η 2 = .186.

The statistical results of mean accuracy revealed a significant main effect of radical markings [ F (1, 38) = 9.45, p = 0.004, ηp 2 = 0.20], a marginally significant main effect of stroke order animations [ F (1, 38) = 3.27, p = 0.079, ηp 2 = 0.08] and a significant main effect of testing time [ F (1, 38) = 106.04, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.74].

Additionally, marginally significant differences were found between the Fast and Slow Groups in the 45°-phase-lag tACS condition compared to the no-tACS condition ( t (9) = 1.86, p = 0.079, Fig. 6 A) and the 180°-phase-lag tACS condition ( t (9) = 2.06, p = 0.055, Fig. 6 C).

Second, we expected this difference to be larger in male than female observers and therefore we compared the difference between threatening minus neutral male body expressions between male and female observers which yielded a marginally significant difference ( t (24) = 1.454, p = 0.079, one-tailed).