“marginally significant”

Yet when only including the wild species, there is a very strong and marginally significant positive correlation between occupancy and density (R = 1, p = 0.08, Fig. 3 ).

PCoA plots by Bray–Curtis distance revealed a marginally significant difference in microorganism composition between the benefit and resistance groups (adonis P = 0.08) but no significant difference between the benefit group and the severe irAE group (adonis P = 0.91).

About DFS, high-risk histology, more than one-half myometrial invasion, and stage III/IV were independent prognostic factors, but 20 or more PLNs resection was associated with better DFS with marginally significant difference (HR=0.57; 95% CI=0.31–1.07; p=0.080) ( Table 2 ). 2.

The test of exogeneity was marginally significant (p = 0.08).

The group difference in SDNN was marginally significant, and the depressed group showed lower SDNN than the non-depressed group ( t = − 1.73, P = 0.08; Cohen’s d = − 0.26, 95% CI [− 0.54, 0.04]).

Compared with the low-risk class, age had no significant effects on the likelihood of being in a particular cluster; while gender (female) had a marginally significant effect on predicting the membership of the moderate-risk class ( OR = 1.407, p = 0.080) and a significant effect on predicting the membership of the high-risk class ( OR = 2.485, p = 0.080).

The two-way interaction between congruency and cue was marginally significant; F (1, 174) = 3.12, MSE = 161981516.9, p = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.02.

After adjustment for age, gender, and diastolic blood pressure, this relationship remained significant for lnRMSSD and was marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for lnHFP.

In all correlation analyses, a p ‐value =< .05 (without multiple comparison corrections) was accepted as statistically significant, though marginally significant results ( p =< .08) were also reported. 2.11.

In amusics, the correlation with the interval test was marginally significant, r (17) = 0.41, p < 0.08, in agreement with the findings for the Mandarin material in Experiment 1.

Mothers’ Utterances Emotion terms: Negative There was a marginally significant main effect of maternal utterances of negative emotion terms on child internalizing problems, F (1, 51)=3.18, p =0.08, η p 2 =0.06, M(SD) Talk =1.50 (0.20), M ( SD ) Not Talk =1.58 (0.26).

Even after controlling for sociodemographic variables, inmates who reported problem drinking and psychedelic drug use experiences were about two times more likely to express suicidal ideation than their counterparts [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.43, p < 0.001 for problem drinking; adjusted OR = 2.13, p < 0.001 for drug use], while the association between physical activity and suicidal ideation was marginally significant (adjusted OR = 1.34, p = 0.08).

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

The main effect of memory type was marginally significant (gist memory > detailed memory) ( F (1, 25) = 3.23, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.11), and the interaction between memory type and retention interval was significant ( F (3, 75) = 5.32, p = 0.002, η 2 = 0.18).

Verification of previous findings The correlation between perceived–actual discrepancy and left anterior insula was marginally significant ( β = 0.41, p = 0.08), whereas that between perceived–ideal discrepancy and right temporoparietal junction was not significant ( β = 0.01, p = 0.78).

Multivariate analyses showed that the PET/CT-guided technique for target volume delineation was an independent prognostic factor for 5-year LRFS, DFS, DMFS, and OS (p = 0.039, p = 0.030, p = 0.035 and p = 0.028, respectively), and was marginally significant in predicting LRRFS (p = 0.080).

We identified a marginally significant association between lesions located at brain level A and ruffling observed over 90dpi (ANOVA; p = 0.08 overall; CC027, p = 0.06).

The impact of SO ambivalence on the time spent on explicit questions relating to sexuality: Straight participants A regression analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of the amount of SO ambivalence on time spent deliberating on the explicit items, β = .29, t (66) = 1.78, p = .08.

There is a marginally significant interaction between CD38 and CD157 ( p < 0.08).

However, age was associated with lower accuracies ( t = −2.92, p < 0.005, eta squared = −0.08), and there was a marginally significant quadratic effect of age on accuracy ( p = 0.08), with the strongest effect of age on accuracy among the oldest adults.

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).

The largest percentage of retired participants was in the group of caregivers who had deceased, with a marginally significant difference (p=0.08).

The interaction between duration and sex was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), with a positive association in males (β = 5.5; p = 0.02) but not in females (β = 0.9; p = 0.41).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between protocol and subscale ( F (6, 186) = 5.42, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.06).

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].