“marginally significant”

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.

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).

There was a significant effect of age and a significant interaction between timepoint and condition ( F s > 4.96, P s < 0.03), but these were qualified by a marginally significant three-way interaction between timepoint, age, and condition F (2,333) = 2.53, P = 0.08.

Additionally, the interaction of previous accuracy in the flanker task and interval was marginally significant, F (1,28) = 3.17, p = 0.08, showing larger PES in the short interval condition (22 ms) compared to the long interval condition (8 ms).

In another replication dataset (the Hisayama Study), there was marginally significant association ( β = 2.18, SE = 1.2, P = 0.08).

A similar pattern of marginally significant association was observed with DBP reactivity ( B = −.004, SE = .002, p = .08; model R 2 = .10, p = .07; Figure 2 b).

A marginally significant interaction effect was observed in ROI4 ( F (1,117) = 3.126, p = 0.080, ηp 2 = 0.026).

The mean difference in latency between no-signal and signal trials was 136 ms, SD = 293, indicating marginally significant shorter latencies in signal than in no-signal trials, t (15) = −1.86, p = 0.08.

We find a marginally significant relationship between identification and performance ( b = 11.53, p = 0.08 two-sided; note that as our hypothesis was directed, one-sided tests resulting in significance on the 5% level could also have been applied).

Mean sICAM-1 concentrations were marginally significant between AMI patients and healthy controls (p-value = 0.08), whereas mean concentrations of sICAM-1 among different blood groups were similar (p-value = 0.539) ( Table-III ).

Urinary markers of oxidative stress tended to be associated with a smaller prostate volume, with a marginally significant inverse association between urinary F2iP levels and prostate volume (p = 0.08).

For perspective-getting, the analysis revealed a significant effect of motivation ( p = 0.022), such that adolescents rated good communication higher than showing care ( p = 0.019) (the comparison to accurate understanding was marginally significant, p = 0.08).

A marginally significant associations ( P values < 0.08) were also observed for rs1544410 in VDR with MRD at day 15 and at week 12 ( P = 0.078 and P = 0.064, respectively) ( Table 4 ).

Marginally significant correlations were found between CN and rooting depth ( r 2 =0.34, P =0.08 and r 2 =0.10, P =0.2261) and root length density ( r 2 =0.28, P =0.1016 and r 2 =0.31, P =0.0896) in deep soil for primary and seminal roots, respectively ( Supplementary Fig.

We did not observe a significant mediation effect for anxiety or impaired control and cognition, but the mediation effect for anxiety was marginally significant in the same direction as dissociative amnesia ( p = 0.08, Suppl.

The increase in rates was statistically significant for larger hospitals (p < 0.001) and marginally significant for small hospitals (p = 0.08).

The same pattern of results was obtained when analyses were limited to CN participants, with significant PP X Age X APOE interaction effects on the Picture Sequence Memory Test ( β = 0.17; p = .039) and the Cognitive Function Composite: β = 0.17; p = .042), and marginally significant PP X Age X APOE interaction effects on the List Sorting Working Memory Test ( β = 0.14; p = .080) and the Fluid Cognition Composite ( β = 0.15; p = .058).

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.

For RT scores, there was a significant main effect of rumination on NA ( β = .25, SE = .04, p <.01), and the interaction between rumination and the RT scores of the emotional n -back was marginally significant ( β = −.07, SE = .04, p = .08).

The final model of PLSPM analysis showed that bottom-water oxygen had a strong positive effect on bioturbation ( P < 0.001), metazoan diversity ( P < 0.001), faunal respiration ( P < 0.001), and microbial aerobic respiration ( P < 0.001) and a negative direct effect on organic matter accumulation (C org , chlorophyll a, and THAA; marginally significant P = 0.08) and microbial anaerobic respiration ( P < 0.01).

ANOVAs with the two conditions (snooze and no-snooze) crossed with the sessions (4 levels: pre-sleep, session 1, session 2, session 3) indicated neither the main effect of the condition ( F (1, 9) = 3.39, p = 0.15, η p 2 = 0.22) nor session ( F (3, 27) = 0.87, p = 0.47, η p 2 = 0.09; W (Mauchly’s sphericity test) = 0.327, p = 0.13) on auditory reaction times, whereas the interaction between condition and session was marginally significant ( F (3, 27) = 2.57, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.22; W = 0.611, p = 0.58).

In Attriters, only a main effect of C was marginally significant at midline sites [ F (1,23) = 3.26, p = 0.08].

In the relatively small EIMS cohort alone, the interaction was marginally significant ( P value = 0.08).

Negative affectivity A marginally significant main effect of time (intercept) reflected a tendency for trait NA scores to decrease from baseline to post-treatment across groups (pooled t (144) = 1.76, p = .08, partial η 2 = 0.02).

The Southeast exhibited notably higher forecasting uncertainty (MAPE = 11.3%; Theil’s U = 0.42) and marginally significant residual autocorrelation (Ljung–Box p = 0.08), attributable to greater interannual variability (CV = 18.7%) and potential structural shifts.