“marginally significant”

The main effect of the DQB1*0201 allele in the factorial mixed-model ANOVA was marginally significant (p = 0.08) with serum CTLA-4 levels being lower in individuals with a DQB1*0201 allele (mean = 1.8 ng/ml) than individuals without a DQB1*0201 allele (mean = 2.4 ng/ml).

7 B ) demonstrated a marginally significant effect of Voice ( B̂ = 0.89 ± 0.51, z = 1.75, p = 0.08), no effect of Time ( B̂ = −0.19 ± 0.27, z = 0.73, p = 0.98), and no interaction Time × Voice ( B̂ = −0.09 ± 0.33, z = −0.27, p = 0.55).

However, they showed marginally significant differences in the post-TSST measure, t (78) = 1.75, p = 0.08, Cohen’s d = 0.4, with Excess weight participants performing significantly poorer than Normal weight controls.

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 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).

Post-hoc tests controlling for multiple testing found that speakers show a significant inverse relation of pupil size slope and frequency slope ( p < 0.005) and recipients show a marginally significant direct relation of pupil size slope and frequency slope ( p = 0.08).

Neither soil sterilization nor soil training affected germination time, but there was a marginally significant region*soil training interaction ( F 3,20 = 2.59, p = 0.08); Centaurea grown in Argentinean soils trained by conspecifics germinated later than in soils trained by grasses, while Centaurea grown in Eurasian soils trained by conspecifics germinated earlier than in soils trained by grasses ( Figure 1 ).

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 ).

The main effect of Stimulus was not significant, F (1,30) <1, p = .716, η 2 = .005, and the main effect of Condition was marginally significant, F (1,30) = 3.35, p = .08, η 2 = .10, but this was subsumed by a significant Stimulus x Condition interaction, F (1,30) = 14.42, p = .001, η 2 = .33.

A marginally significant difference was observed at 6 months [χ 2 (1) = 3.10, p = 0.08], and no significant difference was observed in the other two age groups [10-month-olds: χ 2 (1) = 0.10, p = 0.80; adults: χ 2 (1) = 2.10, p = 0.20], suggesting that the detection of vowel or consonant change was affected similarly by vocoding in the three groups.

The association became marginally significant in boys, P = .08 (Table 4 ).

Specifically, plant functional diversity negatively affected soil C and N, whereas plant richness had a significant positive effects on soil N and a marginally significant positive effect on soil C ( p = 0.08).

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

As shown in Table 7 , only two genes, CDH17 and RNF151 , exhibited marginally significant differences in haplotype frequencies ( p = 0.08, Pearson’s chi-square test), suggesting a potential association with the QTL.

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 perceived severity of the written verbal cyberbullying [Beta = 0.39, t = 2.63, p = 0.01] and the perceived severity when the bystander was not upset [Beta = 0.50, t = 2.72, p = 0.01] had a significant influence on the asking for help from an adult bystander response, whereas the perceived severity of the public cyberbullying had a marginally significant effect [Beta = −0.27, t = −1.73, p = 0.08].

For BRCA and LUSC, we observed marginally significant associations (p-value < 0.08).

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

Moreover, we only detected a marginally significant difference in the proportion of adults along the day (ANOVA, F Survey = 2.51, df = 2, p = 0.08) due to differences in surveys at 12 p.m. compared to other surveys (see Figs. 2 and S1.3 ).

The interaction of effort and reachability condition was statistically significant for wanting (random intercept regression, Physical × Weight coefficient = -0.21, p = .03, two-sided; d = 0.24) and marginally significant for liking ratings (Physical × Weight coefficient = -0.13, p = .08, two-sided; d = 0.15).

S1 A ) as well as medication-induced change in MDS-UPDRS score (i.e., PD-ON UPDRS – PD-OFF UPDRS ) in a marginally significant manner ( r = −0.34, P = 0.08, Pearson ’s correlation); this relationship was significant after removal of one outlier, defined by 3 SDs of group mean, ( r = −0.45, P = 0.01, Pearson ’s correlation, SI Appendix , Fig.

Model 3 (SR → GS rate → SCR) showed a marginally significant mediation effect ( p = .08) ( Table 1 ).

There was a marginally significant direct positive association between the IC being the younger sibling in the sibling dyad and the IC’s BMIz (β: 0.81, 95 % CI: −0.82, 1.70, p = 0.08).

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