“marginally significant”

We found that interdependence significantly increased with relatedness in the 48 hr experiments [both, r 2 (44)>0.11, p<0.02], and this was marginally significant in the 5 min experiments [both r 2 (44)<0.06, 0.07<p < 0.08] ( Figure 3B ).

(We thank Todd Hare for generously sharing a mask of this ROI with us.) In Dataset 1 (unregulated altruistic choice), we replicated the result from the main manuscript that the dlPFC is more activated on generous compared to selfish choices (t 43 =2.09, p=0.04, Appendix 2—figure 1g ), and similarly observed a marginally significant correlation with difference in weights on self vs. other (r=–0.27, p=0.08).

The analysis revealed a marginally significant negative interaction (β = −0.051, 95% CI [−0.109, −0.007], p = 0.08), suggesting PsyCap may weakly enhance DA’s effects on JB.

Residence in an area of higher socioeconomic vulnerability was a marginally significant predictor, OR (95% CI ) = 3.1 (0.9–11.0), p = .08.

However, there was only a marginally significant interaction of percentile and congruency, F (18,630) = 2.26, p = .08, η 2 = 0.06, in the direction that the effect of perceptual-congruency diminished for slower responses, which seems to resemble the RT result for SOA= 500 ms in Experiment 1 .

Finally, there was a marginally significant relationship between response to predator simulation and escape latency (χ2 = 3.12; P = 0.08), where lizards that responded rapidly to the predator simulation were also faster to escape.

As can be seen in Figure 4 , the overall fixation difference between the orthographic and unrelated conditions was not significant, p = 0.4, but there was a marginally significant interaction of orthographic (vs. unrelated) condition by orthographic similarity, β = 0.28, SE = 0.16, z = 1.7, p = 0.08, suggesting that the participants’ tendency to fixate the orthographic competitor over the unrelated object was stronger when the orthographic similarity was higher.

Within the visual motion ROI, there were significant effects of action similarity [ F (2, 22) = 8.3, p = 0.002] and format type [ F (2, 22) = 7.0, p = 0.005], and a marginally significant interaction between the two [ F (4, 44) = 2.2, p = 0.08] (Figure 4A ).

55 years, p = 0.02), and a marginally significant higher percentage were undergoing dialysis before their most current admission that led to VAP (22% vs. 10%, p = 0.08).

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

One outcome – any cannabis use – showed a marginally significant decline at follow-up (p=0.08).

Yoga participants also demonstrated significant, or marginally significant improvements in all but one domain of mood ( P ≤ 0.08), as well as significant reductions in state anxiety, perceived stress, and both systolic and diastolic blood pressure ( P < 0.05).

The Gender main effect was not significant ( p = 0.73), whereas the Session main effect was marginally significant, F (1,14) = 3.57, p = 0.08, MSe = 405.33: the SCR percentages tended to decrease in the second session (Ms = 58% vs. 52%).

The results indicated a marginally significant difference in HER2+ between the low-to-intermediate and high-to-very-high-risk groups ( p = 0.08), with a significant difference observed within subcategories ( p < 0.05).

The A R values of the Yaeyama Islands were significantly higher than that of the Volcano Islands (pairwise t-test, p < 0.01, Fig 5A ), and those of the Yaeyama and Daito, and Bonin and Volcano Islands were marginally significant (pairwise t-test, p = 0.08, 0.07, respectively).

The relation between sleep quality and task risk taking was marginally significant ( r (56) = 0.24, p = 0.08), supporting the idea that poor sleep increases risky behavior. 2.5. fMRI data acquisition Scanning was performed using a 32-channel head coil on a 3-Tesla Siemens Trio MRI machine at the UCLA Center for Cognitive Neuroscience.

However, the effect of the interaction on CSI for Dunkin Donuts Drive-Thru was marginally significant ( β = 0.884, p < 0.08), whereas those for Starbucks Dine-In ( β = − 0.022, p > 0.50), and Starbucks Drive-Thru ( β = 0.1, p > 0.11) were not significant.

Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change There was a marginally significant increase in change efficacy ( p < 0.08) but not change commitment ( p = 0.66) (see Table 3 ).

We found that the free-ratio model fit the data better although this was marginally significant (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 ).

Finally, a marginally significant ( p < 0.08) interaction of Task Choice and ERPI/IRSI emerged, F (2,154) = 2.69, MSE = 0.00057, being due to the fact that restricted task choices went along with a smaller ER (3.5%) than unrestricted task choices (4.5%) with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-2,000, whereas with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-100 and 2,000-100, ERs were virtually the same ( p ’s < 0.36) with unrestricted and restricted choices (3.2 vs. 3.1% and 3.6 vs. 3.4%, respectively).

The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction effect between memory load and group, F (4, 244) = 2.29, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.04.

The interaction was marginally significant, b = −0.24, t (221) = −1.75, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.01, and simple slope analyses revealed that, although there was no significant link for high SES students, b = 0.10, t < 1, for low SES students, the more they endorsed BSM, the more they believed in a meritocratic and just society, b = 0.34, t (221) = 4.21, p < 0.001.

Leptin and leptin receptor levels and genotypes We found that 5′-UTR LEP polymorphism (rs13228377) correlates with serum leptin levels, with AA genotype related to increased leptin level independent of asthma status, although the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.08).

The model with age and gender was marginally significant, F (2,132) = 2.57, p = 0.08, and explained 3.8% of the variance in BAT behavior.