“marginally significant”

In the model investigating attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, attachment anxiety as well became a marginally significant predictor of co-rumination intercepts, estimate(SE) = 0.04(0.02), p = 0.083.

The ANOVA for N170 amplitude revealed a marginally significant main effect of facial expression, F (2,68) = 2.60, p = 0.083, ε = 0.971, η p 2 = 0.07, indicating that N170 amplitude was slightly larger for disgusted faces than for neutral faces ( p = 0.064).

Similarly for the best-fitting slope, although the main effect of sensory detail was marginally significant ( F (2,26) = 2.74, MS = 6051, η p 2 = .174, p = .083), there was a significant quadratic trend ( F (1,13) = 5.70, MS = 11940, η p 2 = .305, p < .05) suggesting that the slope was most negative for speech with an intermediate amount of sensory detail.

In the baseline-adjusted ANCOVA, intervention group differences at week 4 were marginally significant ( p = 0.083), and reached significance ( p = 0.009) after including covariates (BMI, p = 0.008).

There was also a marginally significant interaction with Grammaticality and Height (β Gramm⨉Height = -119 ms, [-237 ms, 22, ms]; t = -1.7, p = .083).

However, in the experiment at the continental scale, the presence/absence of the bacteria was marginally significant for an effect on the relative plant growth ( p = 0.083) and we observed the following trend: when the virus was absent, the presence of the bacteria limited plant growth, while in presence of the virus, the opposite was found (Figure 3B ).

Ordinal logistic model based on COVID-19-specific mortality The overall model regressing on having one or more pulmonary conditions was marginally significant (p-value = 0.083) with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.8205 and 95% confidence interval (CI) of (0.9140, 3.5607).

The first four smaller samples ( n = 228, 255, 241, 233) yielded mixed results, with a marginally significant main effect for experimental group in Experiment 2a, F (1, 225) = 3.04, P = 0.083, η p 2 = 0.013, a nonsignificant effect for group in Experiment 2b, F (1, 252) = 0.10, P = 0.75, η p 2 = 0.0004, a significant main effect for group in Experiment 2c, F (1, 238) = 5.02, P = 0.026, η p 2 = 0.021, and a nonsignificant effect for group in Experiment 2d, F (1, 230) = 2.67, P = 0.10, η p 2 = 0.011.

In the low-depression group, σ values also increased in association with those valence and arousal scores (see the left panels of Figure 4 ), resulting in a significant positive correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient) between the arousal scores and σ values ( r (28) = 0.40, p = 0.028) and a marginally significant correlation between the valence scores and σ values ( r (28) = 0.32, p = 0.083).

recurrent) showed a marginally significant association (HR = 0.480; 95% CI: 0.209–1.101; p = 0.083; R 2 = 100%), suggesting that the direction and magnitude of HIPEC’s effect on progression-related outcomes may differ between primary and recurrent settings.

Development time and growth There was a marginally significant three-way interaction between temperature, day and developmental stage ( F 2,3 = 2.49, P = 0.083; Fig. 3 , Supplementary Table S3 ), with a trend suggesting that temperature influenced the rate of progression through naupliar stages over time.

Pairwise comparisons within male RS of different mating treatments (Table S 3 a) revealed significant difference between Repeated-♂-RS and Virgin-♂-RS ( P = 0.044), and marginally significant difference between Multiple-♂-RS and Virgin-♂-RS ( P = 0.083).

Weighted connectance and weighted nestedness were positively related to the proportion of links removed from the original networks, yet these correlations were marginally significant (ρ = .61 and p = .083 for both metrics; Appendix S1 ). 4.

Post hoc comparison indicated UKMRC9 elicited a marginally significant lower insulin generation compared to UKMRC11 ( p = 0.083) and Jasmine ( p = 0.052) ( Figure 1 b).

Emotional Well-being Subjective Well-being MDBF Mood The repeated-measure analysis yielded a significant main effect of “time,” F (1,34) = 12.29, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.266 , a marginally significant effect of the factor “group,” F (2,34) = 2.67, p = 0.083, η p 2 = 0.136 and a significant interaction between both factors, F (2,34) = 4.003, p = 0.027, η p 2 = 0.191 .

This resulted in significant effects of salience for the durations of 60 ms [ F (2, 14) = 12.968, p = 0.001] and 120 ms [ F (2, 14) = 14.958, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant effect of salience for the duration of 480 ms [ F (2, 14) = 2.985, p = 0.083].

According to Figure 3 , a set of independent sample t -tests showed that the SIN perception threshold μ of the NH group was significantly lower than that of the TN group only under speech masking’s colocation condition ( t = 2.460, p = 0.024) and marginally significant under noise masking’s colocation condition ( t = 1.836, p = 0.083) but not under noise masking’s separation condition ( t = 0.926, p = 0.367) or speech masking’s separation condition ( t = 0.689, p = 0.500).

Supporting these findings, model testing with LTT generated a statistically significant better fit of the birth–death model (speciation + extinction) over the speciation-only Yule model (likelihood ratio test chi 2 p value 0.030), and the Pybus-Harvey gamma statistic was positive (1.7347), indicating that the speciation rate was initially low and subsequently increased (though this statistic was marginally significant at p = 0.083).

There was no significant main effect of parent sex on dyadic coping, but there was a marginally significant main effect of parent age on dyadic coping ( p = 0.083), such that older age predicted poorer dyadic coping.

A marginally significant difference was observed in OS (p = 0.083) but not in PFS (p = 0.38) between the two groups. 3.

There were no significant differences in BMI except when contrasting the myomectomy group with the hysterectomy group where the difference in BMI was marginally significant ( P = .083).

Sixthly, in collective management, the inter-group effect at the pretest is marginally significant ( F = 3.126, p = 0.083, η 2 = 0.053), while the inter-group effect at the posttest is significant ( F = 12.108, p = 0.001, η 2 = 0.178), with the experimental group (23.97 ± 1.35) showing significantly higher collective management than the control group (22.61 ± 1.56).

viverrini showed a marginally significant association with lower odds of infection (aOR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.01–0.87, p = 0.083).

10 years or more); it was marginally significant ( P = 0.083) when controlling for disease duration measured continuously.

Language Group : The MLM revealed a marginally significant difference between monolinguals and bilinguals ( F (1,46) = 3.145, p = .083).