“marginally significant”

The analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of the condition contrast, β = .19, p = .080, qualified by a significant interaction with PNS, β = –.28, p = .036.

There was a marginally significant main effect of the preceding trial type [ F (1, 17) = 3.45, p = .08, η 2 = .03], a significant main effect of the FA type [ F (1, 17) = 15.00, p = .001, η 2 = .10], and a significant interaction between two factors [ F (1, 17) = 24.359, p < .001, η 2 = .20].

Furthermore, a Sobel test ( Sobel, 1982 ) indicated that the mediating effect of the number of close friends was marginally significant ( z = -1.75, p = 0.08).

The estimates established with the bootstrap procedure remained of quite similar values and significance as in the standard approach, with the exception for mid incubation, where the value became marginally significant (P = 0.08, S6 Fig in S1 File ).

Second, it is important to note that our study found a marginally significant difference in the N100 component ( p = 0.08), which suggests a potential trend toward greater N100 in MDD, consistent with prior reports.

In addition, the analysis revealed that family affluence was marginally significant ( P =.08); people who had medium family affluence (OR 3.365, 95% CI 1.058-10.704, P =.04) had a higher risk of BD than people who had high family affluence (see Tables 4 and 5 ).

The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction effect between memory load and group, F (4, 244) = 2.29, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.04.

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).

Furthermore, we observed a marginally significant interaction between product visibility and integration between identities ( b = 0.57, SE = 0.33, z (1) = 1.76, p = .08).

However, probably due to the reduced statistical power of the analyses, this correlation was only qualified by a marginally significant interaction between Stimulus type and the state anxiety score, F(1, 43) = 3.21, p = 0.08, or between Condition and the state anxiety score, F(3, 129) = 2.38, p = .07.

However, the 2 subgroups, problematic and routine use, exhibited marginally significant heterogeneity in their associations with subjective well-being ( P =.08; I 2 =68.3%).

The interaction was marginally significant, b = −0.24, t (221) = −1.75, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.01, and simple slope analyses revealed that, although there was no significant link for high SES students, b = 0.10, t < 1, for low SES students, the more they endorsed BSM, the more they believed in a meritocratic and just society, b = 0.34, t (221) = 4.21, p < 0.001.

(We thank Todd Hare for generously sharing a mask of this ROI with us.) In Dataset 1 (unregulated altruistic choice), we replicated the result from the main manuscript that the dlPFC is more activated on generous compared to selfish choices (t 43 =2.09, p=0.04, Appendix 2—figure 1g ), and similarly observed a marginally significant correlation with difference in weights on self vs. other (r=–0.27, p=0.08).

A marginally significant correlation ( P =0.08) was observed between 5-hmC and 8-oxo-dG in autism ( Figure 2d ) but not control cerebellar samples ( Figure 2c ). 5-hmC level within the upstream EN-2 CpG island promoter and gene body In our initial epigenetic evaluation of the developmentally regulated EN-2 gene, we reporte

There was a marginally significant decrease in self-evaluation in the downward initial similarity consider-the-opposite condition, F (1, 240) = 3.18, p = 0.08, η p 2 =0.03, and no significant difference in self-evaluation in the upward initial similarity consider-the-opposite condition, F (1, 240) = 2.64, p = 0.11, η p 2 =0.01.

There was a marginally significant main effect of group on interaction success ( B = 5.83, t (89.62) = 1.77, p = 0.08), and there was a significant statistical interaction between individuals’ mean proportion of peer interactions and group in predicting interaction success ( B = 30.27, t (96.67) = 2.48, p = 0.01; Fig. 2 A).

In GA, the Mantel r values between site distance and site dissimilarity were marginally significant for species and functional groups (Randomization tests: P = 0.08 and 0.06, respectively), and significant for taxonomic groups (Randomization tests: P = 0.04).

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

Finally, we observed a marginally significant interaction effect for social support, F (1, 58) = 3.104, p = 0.08, with an increase and decrease seen in the intervention and control children, respectively.

The interaction effect was marginally significant [ F (1, 24) = 3.39, p = 0.08, partial η2 = 0.12].

42m-post-stress) repeated measures ANOVA on salivary cortisol levels revealed a marginally significant main effect of stress, F ( 1,26 ) = 3.326, p = .080, η p 2 = .113, a significant main effect of time, F ( 2,52 ) = 5.757, p < .01, η p 2 = .181, and a significant stress × time interaction showing that CPT exposure increased cortisol levels, whereas warm water exposure did not, F ( 2,52 ) = 10.040, p < .001, η p 2 = .279; see Fig. 2 .

Participants in the 1 st sham-iTBS group showed a marginally significant higher AUCi during the first session (i.e., sham-iTBS) than during the second session (active-iTBS) ( p = 0.08).

Females presented the greatest reduction (g = −1.16 [−1.74 to −0.58]), followed by males (g = −0.29 [−0.53 to −0.05]); the mixed-sex subgroup presented a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.08).

The correlation between genetic and geographic distance was marginally significant (R 2 = 0.029, p = 0.08) ( Supplementary Figure S3 ), indicating a weak effect of isolation by distance.

Comparing the programs, more BCMB alumni than GST alumni entered into academic teaching right after their PhD, while more GST alumni joined governmental science (significant by Fisher’s two-sided test) or industry (marginally significant, p = 0.08; Table 4 and Figure 2 ).