“marginally significant”

A marginally significant interaction between tDCS stimulation and group showed that patients tended to respond more strongly to stimulation than controls [ F (2,36) = 2.71, p = 0.08] ( Figure 3A ).

Particularly, TW seemed to show higher diversity in terms of mean number of alleles per locus (Na), allelic richness (AR) and expected heterozygosity (He) than CL in the parental generation G n (Table 1 ; Figure 1 A,B), with marginally significant differences for AR between lines (Z = 1,72; P = 0.08, Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test).

The semen donors in finance or insurance had a significant risk for decrease in semen volume in the crude model ( OR =1.56, p=0.05; figure 1 ), and they had a marginally significant risk for reduced semen volume in the adjusted model ( OR =1.43, p=0.08).

Controlling for demographic characteristics of age, gender, family status, and stage of training did not contribute to any statistically significant changes in the model, with one exception of the direct effect of maladaptive perfectionism on current suicidal ideation, which became marginally significant ( B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.080).

For vocabulary learning, we found a marginally significant effect [ g + = 0.16; k = 20; SE = 0.09; 95% CI = (−0.02, 0.33); p = 0.08].

T4 showed a trend of increase in the SGA, AGA, and LGA groups, although the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.080).

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

A marginally significant program effect was found for the SF-36 measures of general health ( p = 0.08), alcohol use ( p = 0.10), tobacco use ( p = 0.07), and depression ( p = 0.09).

= 0.04, t (17) = 3.66, p<.001) and marginally significant increases in life satisfaction (γ 00 = 0.09, S.E. = 0.05, t (17) = 1.73, p = .08) and happiness (γ 00 = 0.11, S.E. = 0.08, t (17) = 1.50, p = .13).

Specifically, for American participants, the processed pulse products were perceived to be significantly less healthy (ps < 0.001) than unprocessed and minimal processed products, while the difference between latter two were marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

Males showed a tendency to select small females at 34°C for SZS (0.27 probability of selecting large females, Intercept P = 0.09), whereas at 36°C males showed a marginally significant preference for large females (0.61 probability, Tukey 34°C vs 36°C, P = 0.08; Table 4 ).

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.

The correlation between the colorectum as the primary tumor site and local control rates was marginally significant ( P = .080).

attenuata WT ( P < 0.05), between irPMT and WT ( P < 0.05), and marginally significant between irPMT and ISWT plants ( P = 0.08).

The mean number of barriers reported was significantly ( P < 0.05) higher for women compared to men in the 60–69 year age groups and marginally significant in the 70–79 and 80 years and over groups ( P = 0.08).

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy showed association with increased risk of TEE, which was marginally significant (HR, 3.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 15.43; p=0.08).

Within the visual motion ROI, there were significant effects of action similarity [ F (2, 22) = 8.3, p = 0.002] and format type [ F (2, 22) = 7.0, p = 0.005], and a marginally significant interaction between the two [ F (4, 44) = 2.2, p = 0.08] (Figure 4A ).

Moreover, after removing one outlier SNP, the MR-PRESSO shows a marginally significant negative association between VAT and cognitive performance (− 0.17, 95% CI − 0.29 to − 0.04, P = 0.08).

Sex/Age in the Swedish CF population When limiting the analyses to the present Swedish CF sample and to data simulating the Swedish general population [ 17 , 21 ], a Group (CF-patient/general population) × Sex interaction effect on Anxiety was found to be marginally significant, F (1, 925) = 3.07, p = .080, η 2 = .003.

The difference in effect sizes these between subgroups was marginally significant (p = 0.08).

In support of this, we found a marginally significant correlation between changes in motion and changes in the subjective intensity rating ( r = 0.382, p = 0.08).

Using the directional Steiger Z-test, we found, for fornix MD, that there was a marginally significant difference between the two correlations obtained for scenes and faces ( z (26) = 1.39, p = 0.08).

However, there was a marginally significant linear decline in the incidence over the study period (p=0.08) ( Figure 1 ).

This difference is an increase from both NSFG 2015–2017 (marginally significant at p = 0.08) and NSFG 2011–2013 (significant, p < 0.05).

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].