“marginally significant”

Ordinal logistic regression showed a significant positive association of concordance with symptom severity (Z = 2.59, OR = 1.007 [1.002-1.013], P = .010) and a marginally significant negative association with DPI (Z = −1.78, P = .08).

On the contrary the difference between BPD-NSSI and CTRL group was marginally significant ( p =.08).

Repeating the analysis for nucleotide sequences we find marginally significant differences (p < 0.08; sign test).

As for the P2, there was a marginally significant effect of facial expressions [ F (3,174) = 2.25, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.04].

The ANOVA on P3 revealed a marginally significant main effect of prime type, F (1, 17) = 3.28, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.16, with a greater P3 amplitude for the strongly masked no-go trials ( M = 7.94 μV, SD = 0.91) than that for the strongly masked go trials ( M = 7.56 μV, SD = 0.88).

The post-hoc linear contrast was significant, F (1, 121) = 116.48, p < 0.001; however, the correlation between mean biphone probability and community size was marginally significant, p = 0.08.

After adjustment for baseline scores, this difference in recovery between the conditions, as indicated by the interaction between scene type (green, built) and block (3, 5) on RSA, was marginally significant, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.1.

Age was marginally significant (Wald χ2 = 3.070, p = .080).

Additionally, CRTAM demonstrated a downregulation, although being marginally significant after FDR correction (log2 fold change = −0.57; FDR P = 0.08).

However, there was a marginally significant interaction between condition and list [ F (1,27) = 3.27, MSE = 1.80, p = 0.08, = 0.11].

The Bayesian analysis of the phylogenetic signal ( Table 4 ) revealed the occurrences of ciguatera in groupers species have a moderate non-random association with phylogeny; only the MC statistic for the occurrence of ciguatera shown significant P-value (p = 0.04), whereas the PS statistic shown a marginally significant P-value (p = 0.080).

It showed marginally significant association in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98–1.09; p=0.08) ( Supplementary Table 4 ), suggesting that preoperative NLR is more strongly associated with early mortality than with late mortality.

The statistics is marginally significant (two side rank sum test p = 0.08).

The NISs GPA was found to be marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

However, ‘sleep hours’ did not correlate with workplace accidents for the sample as a whole or when differentiating by sex. Regarding sleep quality variables, marginally significant correlations were found in the case of males between ‘sleep quality (last month)’ with workplace accidents, r (15) = .46; p = .08; and ‘sleepiness’ with commuting accidents, r (15) = .45; p = .09.

Note that including the two outlying individuals in the analyses only impacted overall accuracy (not response times), and made the difference between the accuracy for the valid nature trials ( M = 0.81, SE = 0.02) and valid urban trials ( M = 0.74, SE = 0.03) marginally significant; t (84) = 1.75, p = .08).

Grade effect: For the overt victimization, univariate ANOVA indicated that the main effect of grade was marginally significant (F (1,1040) = 2.27, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.007).

Based on this analysis, the effects of sampling days on the microbial richness and evenness were not significant for the control group ( p > 0.05) and marginally significant for the combined treatment group ( p = 0.08).

Based on the marginally significant simple linear regression (F = 3.91; df = 1,9; p = 0.08), the number of exported turtles decreased on average 500,000 turtles per year over the 11 year period.

A 3×2 (Age [9 months, 12 months, adults]) × Condition [individual, joint]) ANOVA with gaze latency yielded significant main effects of age, F (2,57) = 167.89, p <.001, η 2 G = .80, and condition, F (1,57) = 4.50, p = .04, η 2 G = .004, as well as a marginally significant interaction between both, F (2,57) = 2.59, p = .08, η 2 G = .005 [generalised eta squared values are presented to ensure comparability with other studies, see 41, 42].

non-predictive) and Epoch (1–5) on performance correct yielded a marginally significant main effect of Epoch, F (4, 44) = 2.25, p = .08, η p 2 = .17 (with a marginal linear increase in accuracy with Epoch: 91, 93, 93, 93, 95% for Epochs 1 to 5, F (1, 11) = 4.04, p = .07, η p 2 = .27).

Examining univariate tests revealed that this interaction effect was marginally significant for average viewing time per post, F (5, 1268) = 3.09, p < .08, η p 2 = .002.

In addition, we found a marginally significant interactive effect of plant community composition and predator density on soil microbial biomass C (LMM, F = 2.92, P = 0.08).

In contrast, a marginally significant difference was noted in the prevalence of all-cause hospitalization (66.2% vs. 53.3%, P = 0.08) and cardiovascular hospitalization (20.3% vs. 10.5%, P = 0.07) between the elderly and non-elderly groups.

However, there was a significant group by hemisphere by distractor location interaction, F (1, 35) = 6.1, p < .05, η p 2 = .15, and marginally significant 4-way interaction between group, hemisphere, and distractor type and location, F (1, 35) = 3.2, p = .08, η p 2 = .08.