“marginally significant”

Time contrasts showed that no treatment-related difference was found from baseline to 3 months (F[1, 104]=2.7, P =0.10), was marginally significant from baseline to 6 months (F[1, 104]=3.2, P =0.08), and was significant from 3 to 6 months (F[1, 104] = 6.43, P =0.01), suggesting no effect of the treatment initially (baseline to 3 months), but a significant effect of the treatment toward the end of the intervention (3-6 months).

However, the weighted contrast comparing Muslims and Protestants together to Jews and Hindus together was marginally significant, β = 0.16, t (8054) = 1.74, p = 0.08, though the effect size was small.

There were also marginally significant main effects of the message type (F(4,722) = 2.06, p = 0.08) and gender (F(2,722) = 3.58, p = 0.06), but no main effect of NfC (F(2,722) = 0.68, p = 0.41).

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).

Additionally, the interaction effect between the two was marginally significant, α = 0.9 (b = 0.62, t = 1.75, p = 0.08).

Households earning 70,000–90,000 CNY show a similar trend with a marginally significant coefficient ( p = 0.08), reinforcing the link between income flexibility and residential choices that may prioritise urban locations.

In all cases, judgments of others’ fear elicited lower activations after exposure to incongruent joyful movies, relative to congruent fearful movies [ t (32) ≥ 2.02, P ≤ 0.05; marginally significant for the precuneus, t (32) = 1.79, P = 0.08]; whereas conversely, judgments of others’ joy produced lower activity after incongruent fearful movies, relative to congruent joyful or neutral movies [ t (32) ≥ 2.35, P ≤ 0.03].

However, the interaction group × block became marginally significant, F (6, 157) = 1.91, MSE = 0.10, p = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.07, which appeared to be accounted for by changes in performance in cathodal right DLPFC and anodal right IFJ relative to sham.

We also found a marginally significant interaction of Configuration * Race-of-the-stimulus [ F (1, 25) = 3.6, MSE = 37, p = 0.08; partial η 2 = 0.08] and post-hoc analysis revealed that whereas for own-race faces the amplitude of the P3 was larger for normally configured (12.2 ± 2.8 μV) than distorted faces (10.7 ± 3.0 μV; p = 0.008 < 0.01), no such effect was found for other-race faces (13.9 ± 2.8 μV and 13.2 ± 3.1 μV for normally configured and distorted faces, respectively; p > 0.05) and that the ORA-of-P3 was larger for distorted (3.8 ± 1.8 μV) than normal faces (1.5 ± 1.6 μV; p = 0.006 < 0.01).

In the mortality analysis, the Cox proportional hazards test showed a marginally significant effect of diet treatment on rate of death (Wald statistic = 6.87, df = 3, P = 0.08; Fig 3 ).

At baseline, MVPA exhibited a positive correlation with CRF (β = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23~0.58, p < 0.001) and FGDS (β = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06~0.25, p = 0.002), and a marginally significant association with GDR score (β = 0.11, 95% CI: −0.01~0.23, p = 0.080) in the unadjusted model (Model 1).

Additionally, there was a marginally significant difference between the 80 and 280-ms delay conditions ( p = 0.08).

First, as shown in Model 1 of Table 2 , upon controlling for demographic variables, leader autonomy-oriented help was positively associated with member self-efficacy (γ = 0.30, p < 0.001), while the effect of leader dependency-oriented help on member self-efficacy was marginally significant (γ = 0.06, p = 0.08).

Finally, we observed a marginally significant interaction effect for social support, F (1, 58) = 3.104, p = 0.08, with an increase and decrease seen in the intervention and control children, respectively.

Amount of L1 use had a marginally significant main effect F (1, 39) = 3.26, p = .08, R 2 = .08.

S2B ] , but the trends followed a similar pattern as seed production, with a marginally significant snowmelt × fungal treatment interaction ( P = 0.080).

Moreover, we have found a marginally significant timepoint (heart rate before the film vs heart rate after the film) x film group (trauma vs control) interaction effect, F 1,64 = 3.12, p = 0.08.

There was a marginally significant positive correlation between anxiety before the consultation and OHIS ( r =0.18; P =.08), suggesting that patients who report higher anxiety levels might engage more in OHIS.

For LDL-cholesterol and triglyceride, there were significant patients status effects and marginally significant BAT status effects ( P = 0.08 and P = 0.06, respectively).

Except for non-significant differences in the MSCEIT ( p = 0.32) and marginally significant differences in category fluency ( p = 0.08), the cognitive scores on the MCCB total and other tests were significantly lower in patients than healthy controls (all p < 0.001).

The correlation with phonological distance remained marginally significant even when controlling for both genealogy and geography (p = 0.08).

For salivary cortisol, a significant main effect of time was identified, with a peak in cortisol level in the final sample (SR4) as compared to post “rest1” sample [F(3,159) = 2.66, p < 0.05; 54 participants with sufficient saliva samples were included in this analysis]; Tukey’s HSD post-hoc analyses revealed a marginally significant peak in cortisol level in the final sample (SR4) as compared to post “rest 1” sample (SR1, 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).

We also observed marginally significant positive main effects of time ( β = 0.001, 95% CI [−0.000, 0.002], t (93) = 1.773, p =.080) and significant effects of period ( β = 0.168, 95% CI [0.055, 0.281], t (93) = 2.945, p =.004).

M low-conformity = 17.11%; F(1, 150) = 10.08, p < 0.01), and importantly, a marginally significant two-way interaction (F(1, 150) = 3.04, p = 0.08; Fig. 5 ).