“marginally significant”

There was also a marginally significant negative relationship between NDSI and herbivore damage ( p = 0.08; R 2 m = 0.20, R 2 c = 0.20; Fig. 1 ; Table S1 ).

Nevertheless, the relationship between the Δ 13 C of wheat and barley became marginally significant ( p =0.08) after samples from one site (Horum Höyük, whose kernels suggest a much better water status for barley) were discarded ( Supplementary Fig. 3 ).

The direct actor effect of Partner A’s general stress communication on his/her own interaction quality was marginally significant, b = 0.84, SE = 0.48, p = 0.08, and further, the partner-partner indirect effect was statistically significant, b = -0.93, SE = 0.31, p = 0.002.

In the 600–800 ms interval, omnibus repeated measures ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of repetition ( F (1,23) = 3.35, p = .08) and a marginal repetition × anteriority interaction ( F (2,46) = 3.2, p = .07).

Predictors of perceived functioning and effectiveness scores There was a significant difference in perceived functioning scores between structure type ( p = 0.05) and a marginally significant difference in scores between districts ( p = 0.08).

Nevertheless, in the young adult group (aged 19–39 years), a statistically significant association between AD and thyroid dysfunction (aOR, 5.86; 95% CI, 1.51–22.67) and a marginally significant association between AD and anti-TPO Ab positivity (aOR, 2.05; 95% CI 0.91–4.65; P = 0.08) were found.

Additionally, there were minimal differences observed between the normalized post-drive postural sway metrics for the closed test track study and this on-road study (only M/L RMS sway velocity was marginally significant at p = 0.08), suggesting that the in-vehicle exposures scale similarly.

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

For allium vegetables, we found a statistically significant antagonistic interaction for rs848 (G–T) and allium vegetable intake (OR interactiv e [OR i ]), 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.99; P = 0.03), and marginally significant interactive effects between rs847 ( P = 0.08) or rs1295685 ( P = 0.06) and allium vegetable intake.

We also observed a higher need for IV analgesics in the laparoscopy group, although this difference was marginally significant (p = 0.080).

Relationship of executive function and volumetric brain structure measures at school-age Canonical correlation between the 3 EF measures (ROCF, Incidental Accuracy/Copy and Immediate Recall conditions, and Structural Accuracy/Copy condition) and the 6 Regional Volumetric Brain Measures (cerebellum inclusive of vermis, brainstem, right caudate, occipital white matter, left nucleus accumbens and left insula) were marginally significant (χ 2 = 30.40, df = 21, p = 0.08), indicating a marginal association between EF and brain volumetric measures at school-age.

M sink-slower = 0.87), there was a marginally significant interaction between trial type and condition, F (4,200) = 2.08, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.04.

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).

However, both treatments of 5 μ m and 5 repeated doses of 5 μ m were not statistically significant from the DMSO control group, with 5 × 5 μ m group being marginally significant compared to DMSO control, p ‐value = 0.08 (Figure 2B ).

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 residual variances for the high level measures were uncorrelated, although e2↔e3 was marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

Activity in the aVS was not significant during positive violation trials relative to confirmatory trials [ t (16) = 0.86, p = 0.20], but exhibited marginally significant increases during negative violation trials compared to confirmatory trials [ t (16) = 1.49, p = 0.08].

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).

Results Pre-experiment ratings As expected, participants found the android to be significantly less humanlike ( M android = 4.32, M control = 7.42, t (37) = 8.89, p <0.0001, d = −1.44), and felt less comfortable viewing his videos than those of the control (marginally significant two-tailed t-test: M android = 4.11, M control = 4.68, t (37) = 1.83, p = 0.08, d = 0.29).

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).

Additionally, skin cancer exhibited a marginally significant increase in signal intensity compared to normal skin tissue (1666.25 ± 830 vs. 224.37 ± 95.81, n = 3, p = 0.08).

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.

Functional He/Qc ratio deficit of the ACLD limb was only noticeable at 30° and 40°, yet the decrease in the peak moment He/Qc only showed marginally significant difference ( P = 0.080), in consistence with the findings of Gibson et al . 45 .

There was a marginally significant interaction between Target Category and Saccade Accuracy (F 1,23 = 3.33, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.126), suggesting that the difference in latencies according to the target stimulus was more pronounced for correct (25 ms difference with 187 ± 17 ms for Face target and 212 ± 26 ms for Vehicle target) than error saccades (14 ms difference with 175 ± 30 ms for Face target and 189 ± 21 ms for Vehicle target).

This trend was marginally significant (ANOVA p = 0.08) in the 0–2 cm depth interval (Figure 1 ; n = 6 N-fertilized vs. n = 6 unfertilized samples, However, gene copy number normalized per gdw was not significantly different among treatments in the 0–2 cm depth interval (data not shown).