“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant four-way interaction including the Pre-Post contrast (Site ∗ Stimulation ∗ Pre-Post ∗ List: β = -0.06 ± 0.04, t = -1.75, p = 0.081) but not the Pre-During contrast, (Site ∗ Stimulation ∗ Pre-During ∗ List: β = -0.05 ±0.04, t = -1.36, p = 0.17).

For the final turning peak velocity ( Figure 3 F), the elderly group showed marginally significant differences with respect to the senior adults ( p = 0.081), but their peak velocity was significantly lower than in young adults ( p = 0.015) and in children ( p = 0.015).

Gender differences were marginally significant in TAFS-M and TAFS-L in the same direction (t=-1.76, df=91, p=0.081, Cohen’s d=0.41; t=-1.75, df=91, p=0.084, Cohen’s d=0.41).

In addition, there was a significant main effect of time ( p = .007), and a marginally significant condition * time interaction ( p = .081) was seen for the low-frequency/high-frequency ratio ( Fig 5C ).

Without the participant, the correlation between hearing aid use and BEPTA was marginally significant, r (13) = 0.501, p = 0.081.

Results also showed a marginally significant difference in group, F (1, 62) = 3.02, p = 0.081, η p 2 = 0.49, with orphans eliciting more negative FRN (4.65 ± 0.60 μV) than controls (6.10 ± 0.59 μV), see Figure 4 .

The multilocus HKA test performed considering silent variation in the sixteen PcG genes was marginally significant using D . guanche as outgroup (χ 2 = 22.09, df = 15, P = 0.0812).

Now, what happens to the shape of the baseline cloglog[ h ( t )] function when we change to manmade (asymmetrical, simple SP-fragmented) object outlines? Parameters 7–9 show a marginally significant main effect of Manmade after presentation 1 (parameter 7, PE = −0.3262, p = .0813), and Manmade interacts with TIME in a significant quadratic fashion, changing from (significantly) negative to (non-significantly) positive over time.

As shown in Figure 3 A, older participants had higher ΔfMRI expression scores and greater ΔRT (coefficient of a ) but this effect was marginally significant ( P = 0.0814), and higher ΔfMRI expression scores were associated with greater ΔRT (coefficient of b , P = 0.0004).

The best AICc mortality model included a marginally significant sex-by-treatment interaction ( p = 0.0818; electronic supplementary material, table S2A), prompting a separate analysis of the sexes.

Still, there was a marginally significant interaction between Group and Year, with pre-adopters tending to rate 2014 more highly than 2015, opposite the pattern of adopters ( F (1,643) = 3.04, p = 0.0818).

TVRR showed a marginally significant correlation with clinical stages: 46.8%±25.1%, 39.1%±25.9%, 30.7%±24.8%, and 30.8%±21.7%, respectively (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.138; p=0.082).

First, we evaluate ‘confounding effect.’ Among the unmeasured variable, history of hypertension (HTN) and number of endovascular managements were marginally significant (HR, 0.194; 95% CI, 0.031–1.239; P = 0.082 and HR, 0.600; 95% CI, 0.420–0.858; P = 0.057).

The treatment group receives 0.4 more offers for all job types, representing a 14% marginally significant increase ( P = 0.082 , q = 0.066 , 95% CI [−0.05, 0.87], column 5 in Table 1 ), and 0.2 more offers for tenure-track positions, which is not statistically significant ( P = 0.364 , 95% CI [−0.22, 0.59] column 6 in SI Appendix , Table S12 ).

The results indicated that the interaction effect between the COVID-19 threat salience and the relative importance of sensation seeking was marginally significant ( β = −0.17, se =0.10, t = −1.75, p = .082, 90% CI: [−0.337, −0.010]).

However, only a marginally significant p-value (p=0.082 using the log-rank test) was observed compared with the CCRT group (estimated OS of 68.7 months vs. 59.8 months).

The difference between the two prime structures was marginally significant ( p = 0.0820).

The differences between the combinations and the images were marginally significant ( p = 0.082).

In the “stimulation group” there was only a marginally significant difference between the task performance at the first (7.7% ± 1.6) and the second time point of task execution (8.7% ± 1.6) ( t (16) = −1.86; p = .082).

The interaction between self‐identity and root fresh weight was marginally significant ( p = 0.082, Table 2 , Supporting Information Table S2 ).

In the hand condition, a two-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects of Age [ F (1, 41) = 17.65, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.277] and Reaching [ F (1, 41) = 8.88, p = 0.005, η 2 = 0.014] and a marginally significant interaction effect [ F (1, 41) = 3.18, p = 0.082, η 2  = 0.005].

Classification based on the underlying airway disease showed an increased AI risk in patients with asthma (HR: 3.10, 95% CI: 1.84–5.23) and a marginally significant risk in patients with COPD (HR: 3.23, 95% CI: 0.86–12.16, P = 0.082).

The expectancy effect was marginally significant [ F (1,21) = 3.34, MSe = 31.22, p = 0.082, η p 2 = 0.14; observed power = 0.42] and manifested itself as a negativity to low-expected words.

Tobacco smoking was significantly associated with reduced recurrence-free survival (50.2% versus 100% for never smokers; log-rank p = 0.045), while HPV-status association with increased recurrence-free survival was marginally significant (75.5% for HPV-positive versus 48.8% for HPV-negative; log-rank p = 0.082) (Supplementary Fig. 1A,B ).

Further analysis demonstrated that interaction between language and the Simon effect was significant for the single trial baseline ( β = 0.462, SE = 0.129, t = −3.59, p = 0.001) and marginally significant under the repeat trial baseline ( β = 0.222, SE = 0.126, t = 1.77, p = 0.082).