“marginally significant”

Pauses (In-Air Pen Duration) Between the Preposition and the Article 2 The orthographic consistency factor had a marginally significant effect in the analysis conducted on in-air pen duration (or pause) between the preposition and the article 2 , F (1,18.313) = 3.28, p = 0.08 ( Estimate = 24.39, SE = 18.31).

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).

The deleterious effects of negative emotions were not different between eight-year-olds and 12-year-olds ( β = -294.84; SE = 326.7; z = -.9; p =.37) and were marginally significant between 12-year-olds and 14-year-olds (β = 539.5; SE = 304.5; z = 1.77; p =.08).

Post hoc testing revealed only a marginally significant decrease in flower visit duration in response to florivory compared to control (Tukey, p = 0.08), in the first experimental round.

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].

There was a significant interaction ANIMACY by TELICITY at midline sites [ F (1,27) = 6.08; p < 0.05], being marginally significant for lateral electrodes [ F (1,27) = 3.36; p < 0.08].

In addition, the main effect of Site was marginally significant ( F (6, 28) = 1.95, P = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.07) and post hoc comparisons demonstrated that the vMMN was larger at the occipital electrode sites (O1, O2, and Oz) than left temporal electrode sites (A1, TP7) and right temporal electrode sites (A2, TP8).

After adjustment, the difference in PDFF remained marginally significant ( p = 0.08), possibly indicating early compositional changes associated with biomechanical factors.

We observed a marginally significant interaction with self reported hypertension history (P=0.08), and non-significant interactions with residence (P=0.20) and marital status (P=0.14).

Interactions with current IQ were statistically significant ( p < 0.01) for the card-sorting scores and marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for the trail-making scores.

Choice horizon was a significant positive predictor of pupil size at bin −6 ( β = 51.32, p = 0.016) and bin −1 ( β = 21.80, p = 0.039), with a marginally significant effect at bin 0 ( β = 18.25, p = 0.08).

Total activity count showed a marginally significant relationship with hand pain ( p = 0.08, p-nonlinear = 0.35), with higher activity count associated with greater hand pain relief over time.

3.4 Associations between STG gray-matter cortical thickness and STG total power and ITC A Group by Hemisphere ANOVA on STG gray-matter CT showed a marginally significant main effect of Group (HC > SZ), F (1,66) = 3.20, p = 0.08.

A marginally significant effect for risk × group (F (1, 214) = 3.09, p = 0.08) was observed with the HIV- group selecting risky choices marginally more than the HIV+ group (HIV-: risky M = 0.19, safe M = 0.62; HIV+: risky M = 0.14, safe = 0.68).

There was also a marginally significant negative correlation between behavioral MW state and mixed state ( r = −0.41, p = 0.08).

A two-way ANOVA with 2 levels of movement property (dynamic central + static peripheral, static central + dynamic peripheral) x 2 levels of stimulus orientations (upright central + inverted peripheral, inverted central + upright peripheral) on the proportion of valid trials revealed a marginally significant interaction, F (1,17) = 3.53, p = .08, η p 2 = .17.

However, in distinguishing infiltrating ductal tumours from DCIS, ER was also a strong marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.08).

For math GRE, in Step 1, the effect of RSPAN was marginally significant at the 0.08 level, b = 0.0036, t (42) = 1.77, p = 0.08, indicating that higher scores on RSPAN predicted higher scores on the math GRE at the 0.08 level.

The statistics is marginally significant (two side rank sum test 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.

While no significant between-group difference was found in “Effectiveness” ( P = 0.688), the patients in the BEAR group showed significantly greater scores than those in the IBT group in “Enjoyment” ( P = 0.020) and a marginally significant difference in “Adherence” ( P = 0.080).

It is statistically significant in wave 25 (p = 0.01, one-tailed), marginally significant in wave 26 (p = 0.08, one-tailed), and non-significant in wave 27.

Paired t tests revealed a marginally significant, yet clinically meaningful, decrease in patient’s cancer symptoms ( t = 2.32, P = .08; MDASI mean; pre = 1.75, post = 1.04).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between time and group, F (1, 87) = 2.19, p = 0.08, n 2 p = 0.09.