“marginally significant”

The mean value of Lymphocyte ratio % in the welder group (30.29 ± 6.19%) was lower than the non-welder group (32.32 ± 6.64%), but marginally significant (p = 0.085).

This revealed a marginally significant main effect of Color Swap ( F (1,34) = 3.158, p = 0.085, η 2 p = 0.085), no effect of Reward Magnitude ( F <1), and an interaction between the factors ( F (1,34) = 4.944, p = 0.034, η 2 p = 0.127).

This analysis revealed greater peak responses in the LBD group, in comparison with the HBD group, during the instruction “look ahead at the whole body” (p = .020) and marginally significant group differences for “open the mirror” (p = .085), “face and head” (p = .090), “neck and arms” (p = .075) and “back side” (p = .089).

All other investigated traits (see details in table S3) are not significantly associated with the observed shifts ( P > 0.1), except for maximum elevation of species distribution, which is marginally significant ( P = 0.085).

For non-cognates, in the first repetition there was a significant interaction between experiment and priming (F1(1,115) = 11.495, MSE = 14143.137, p = .001; F2(1,172) = 14.361, MSE = 29736.914, p < .001), a significant main effect of language (F1(1,115) = 16.382, MSE = 37476.322, p<001; F2(1,172) = 9.966, MSE = 127153.134, p = .002), a marginally significant main effect of experiment by subjects only (F1(1,115) = 3.010, MSE = 37476.322, p = .085; F2<1) and marginally significant interactions between experiment and language also by subjects only (F1(1,115) = 3.761, MSE = 37476.322, p = .055; F2(1,172) = 1.404, MSE = 127153.134, p = .238).

In addition, there was also a marginally significant interaction between the two factors ( F (1,19) = 3.30, p = 0.085) but no main effect of valence with respect to originality.

Surgical fees showed a significant downward baseline trend (β 1 = −39.951, p < 0.001), a marginally significant level decrease (β 2 = −1442.363, p = 0.085), and a significant upward slope change (β 3 = 68.107, p < 0.001).

Three dimensional LVEF was higher in patients with rejection, however it showed only a marginally significant association [OR 1.035 (0.995; 1.077), p = 0.085].

Clinical Outcome The paired t -tests comparing the TQ and the loudness differences between baseline and day 12 in the overall group of 77 patients revealed a significant decrease in the TQ score ( t (76) = 2.474, P = .016) and a marginally significant decrease in the loudness rating ( t (76) = 1.745, P = .085).

Partial Mantel tests controlling for the effect of time between sampling dates gave similar impacts of same vs different lake ( r = 0.372, P = 0.001) and same vs different host species ( r = 0.248, P = 0.001) on Prevosti distances. Our first AMOVA indicated marginally significant differences between P. ramosa genotypes in different lakes (variation explained = 11.9%, P = 0.085; Table 4 ), significant differences between genotypes infecting different host species within lakes (variation explained = 24.0%, P = 0.025; Table 4 ), and significant differences in P. ramosa genetic structure over time during outbreaks (variation explained = 15.2%, P = 0.002; Table 4 ).

In Dettenheim, a marginally significant increase (p = 0.085), of on average 5 species, was found between 2010 and 2015.

Moreover, Model 2 showed that, net of a marginally significant effect of disease duration ( b = 0 . 01; OR = 1.01, 95% CI [1.00, 1.03]; z = − 1.71; p = 0.085), a higher number of HTSs exhibited during the MMSE proved to be predictive of the presence of eHTS (OR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.19, 1.71]; z = 3.72, p < 0.001], with the post-hoc decomposition of this effect sh

difficult, the main effect of time point was marginally significant, F (3) = 2.37, p = 0.085, although a planned contrast revealed that mothers reported less ease of virtual visits at 12 months ( M = 2.43, SD = 1.28) compared with maternal reports at the other three time points combined (3 months: M = 1.69, SD = 0.85; 6 months: M = 1.33, SD = 0.52; 9 months: M = 1.64, SD = 0.92), t (40) = 2.65, p = 0.011.

Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and major comorbidity showed a marginally significant lower risk of COVID-19 disease (hazard ratio = 0.533, p = 0.085) and hospital admission (hazard ratio = 0.411, p = 0.061) in patients with positive MERS-CoV.

Elevated CO 2 alone significantly ( P < 0.05) increased the signal intensities of mcrA for CH 4 production and pmoA for CH 4 oxidation, while the signal intensities of these two genes decreased under warming at marginally significant ( P = 0.085) or significant ( P = 0.033) levels, respectively ( Supplementary Figure S5 ).

The only significant interaction term is Temperature × NTP ( t -test, p = 0.0003), while the Temperature × Benzyl–OH (Benzyl alcohol) interaction was marginally significant ( t -test, p = 0.085).

In contrast to the first three sampling times, wherein the main effect of movement speed was either significant (PeakVel: F (2,38) = 70.58, p < 0.0005; EOT: F (2,38) = 21.14, p < 0.0005) or marginally significant (EOT + 1 s: F (2,38) = 2.76, p = 0.085), the main effect of movement speed was absent at EOT + 2 s (F (2,38) = 0.91, p = 0.417) and at all subsequent time points.

Marginally significant differences were observed in the total trajectory length of the midpoint of the waist ( p = .085, Cliff's d = 0.44) and the midpoint of both knees ( p = .051, Cliff's d = 0.47) in the KEL method than in the MML method ( Figure 8 ).

Additionally, there were two marginally significant interactions: one occurred between activation in the response inhibition system and the number of communities ( β = 0.299, p = 0.085; Figure 4 A), whereas the other occurred between activation in the response inhibition system and the network size ( β = 0.211, p = 0.084).

FA also showed a marginally significant positive effect (B = 0.477, SE = 0.277, p = 0.085) (odds ratio = 1.611, 95 % confidence interval = [0.936, 2.773]).

Using this difference score as our dependent measure and group as fixed factor, we found a marginally significant main effect of group, F (2, 138) = 2.51, P = 0.085, ηp2 = 0.035 (this is analogous to an interaction effect using repeated measures ANOVA with a group factor and an age factor: the statistics are identical).

However, a significant effect of Time-to-Failure reflects that the error rate increased over time, F (9, 522) = 2.43, p = 0.01, and a marginally significant Condition effect suggests that implementation intention participants tended to make more errors than goal intention participants, F (1, 58) = 3.08, p = 0.085 (Fig. 2B ).

Overall, the odds of mental health distress increased by a marginally significant 22% (OR 1.22 [CI 0.99–1.49] p = 0.085).

5 Supplemental individual-level analysis using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model ( Kenny et al., 2006 ) showed convergent results; the Actor × Partner interaction was marginally significant, b = -171.33, SE = 8.49, t (102) = -1.74, p = 0.085 95% CI[-366.68, 24.21].

As well as marginally significant improvements in physical functioning ( p = 0.085), the score was increased in bodily pain ( p = 0.290), social functioning ( p = 0.148) and role-emotional ( p = 0.144) subscales.