Nevertheless, in a model with all response styles entered into the model simultaneously, a marginally significant relationship between rumination at time T−1 and negative affect at the subsequent time point was found (p = .079).
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
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.
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 ).
The differences in F2 and F3 between Stage 4 and 5 groups were statistically significant (F2, p = 0.029; F3, p = 0.008), and the difference in F1 was marginally significant ( p = 0.079).
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 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).
There were no differences between the urban group and the rural group in estimates of female–good AC, but a marginally significant difference in estimates of male–bad AC, ⊿χ 2 (1) =3.08, p = .079, w =.015, indicating that the two groups’ participants had equivalent levels of positive associations with females activated and that urban women had slightly less negative associations with males activated than rural participants.
Similarly, off-medication symptoms (AUC=0.62, P =0.048) significantly predicted treatment response, whereas dose adjustment was a marginally significant predictor (AUC=0.61, P =0.079).
Moreover, the main effect of training order was marginally significant, F (1, 26) = 3.34, p = 0.079, η 2 g = 0.05 for task 2.
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.
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).
The multivariate main effect of study was significant, F (3, 471) = 6.57, p < .001, η p 2 = .04, and the effect of response marginally significant, F (3, 471) = 2.28, p = .079, η p 2 = .01.
In addition, baseline CC16 levels showed a marginally significant association with the change in ppFEV 1 ( P = 0.079).
Among men in the intervention arm, the HIV seroconversion hazard rate was 21% lower with 0 network females (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.55, 1.14), which was non-significant ( p = 0.213); 37% lower with 1 network female (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.42, 0.92), which was significant ( p = 0.018); and 51% lower with 2 network females (HR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.22, 1.09), which was marginally significant ( p = 0.079).
The main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (2,87) = 2.609, p = 0.079, η 2 = 0.057].
Under the long streak condition, the difference between SG and CG was only significant when subjects won (F(1,17) = 13.12, p = .002), but not when they lost (p (1,17) = 2.24, p = .15); the outcome by agency interaction was marginally significant (F(1,17) = 3.50, p = .079).
The duration of stage II was not significantly affected by male identity or the interaction (p > 0.209), although there was a marginally significant effect of female species (F 1,79 = 3.17, p = 0.079).
The overall genotype × laying stage interaction was marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.065, p = 0.079), indicating stage‐dependent trends in genotype‐related variation (Table 6 ).
This interaction was marginally significant in the univariate within-subjects results, F (6,60) = 2.0 , p = 0.079, ηp 2 = 0.17.
There were also marginally significant interactions between Session and Lexicality, F(1,11) = 3.744, MSE = 136.739, p = 0.079, as well as between Lexicality, Hemisphere and Location, F(2,22) = 3.189, MSE = 52.667, p = 0.070.
Males had increased odds of 2.2636 (95%CI: 0.91 to 5.64) of having hearing loss, which was marginally significant ( p -value = 0.079).
Moreover, the IFI27 mRNA level in primary GN (Group 2) was higher than that of IgAN at a marginally significant level ( P = 0.079).
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.
Similarly, morning aldosterone in healthy controls did not correlate with the above-mentioned markers, except for a marginally significant negative correlation with NT (r = −0.347, p = 0.079).