“marginally significant”

The interaction effect between disclosing robot and involving user was marginally significant ( F (1,23) = 3.179, p = 0.088, η G 2 = 0.023).

Main Effects Analyses The two-way MANCOVA shows a marginally significant total direct effect of ad type on taste perceptions ( F (1, 136) = 2.96, p = 0.088), with the single-sense ad slogan ( M = 7.15, SD = 1.60) leading to more positive taste perceptions than the multiple-sense ad slogan ( M = 6.68, SD = 1.61).

On the other hand, the effect of this variable on prosocial behavior was somewhat ambiguous, since the omnibus F test was marginally significant ( P = 0.088), and if the post-hoc comparison of means is to be conducted with this sample, only the mean for high–low group was shown to be significantly lower than the low–low group.

A significant main effect of age was observed ( F (5, 1466) = 10.262, p < 0.001), whereas the main effect of sex was marginally significant ( F (5, 1466) = 2.917, p = 0.088).

Experiment 2 From 18:00 to 22:00, both male and female were more attracted to clean air compared to the volatiles from feeding-damaged mulberry trees, and the differences were marginally significant (Wilcoxon signed rank test, Male, p = 0.088; Female, p = 0.063; Figure 6 A,C).

On the other hand, an increased risk, although marginally significant, appeared with the combination of rare alleles at TYR and ADAMTS20 (OR = 1.54; p = 0.088) (See Table 2 ).

INTENTIONAL BINDING TASK The GLM revealed a significant main effect of AGENCY, F 1,50 = 6.28, p = 0.015, and a marginally significant trend of JUDGMENT, F 1,50 = 3.032, p = 0.088.

Notably, staff with 2–5 years of service had a significant negative relationship with availability (B = −2.8, p = 0.013) and inventory turnover (B = −2.367, p = 0.04), but a marginally significant positive relationship with inventory turnover effectiveness (B = 5.217, p = 0.088).

The hypothesized effect of the structural paradox on distrust as compared to the low power-low status condition became marginally significant ( p = 0.088).

2 In the univariate logistic regression models, IgM positivity (69% of samples) and C3 positivity (17% of samples) were not associated with treatment failure, which is defined as nonachievement of at least partial remission at the last follow-up, (odds ratio [OR]: 2.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–7.87, P = 0.164 and OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 0.39–5.99, P = 0.545, respectively), percentage of SSG was marginally significant (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99–1.07, P = 0.088), whereas percentages of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy and percentage of C4d+ nonglobally sclerosed glomeruli were independent predictors of treatment failure, and remain significant after the adjustment to the 24-hour proteinuria and percentage of SSG in the multivariate model (OR per 1% = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.003–1.11, P = 0.038 and OR per 1% = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.007–1.054, P = 0.008, respectively).

A marginally significant correlation between pairwise F ST and geographic distance (r = 0.45, p = 0.088; Supplementary Table 4 ; Supplementary Figure 3 ) suggested weak isolation-by-distance. 3.2.

Previously sibling mortality was marginally significant following multivariable adjustment (IRR = 1.032, p = 0.088).

In these analyses, the interaction between overall attitude and cognitive-affective inconsistency was marginally significant, B = −0.006, SE = .004, β = −.044, p = .088, while the interaction between overall attitude and cognitive-affective ambivalence was not significant, B = −0.007, SE = .006, β = −.038, p = .219.

A follow-up regression model predicting unique actions from education and proportion of key function play yielded a marginally significant interaction term ( p = .088), so we remain cautious in our interpretation.

The interaction term between stimulation code and stimulus site was marginally significant (p = 0.088), thus the simple effects were probed to avoid a Type II error ( Figure 3 ), but Bonferroni adjustments were applied to reduce the probability of Type I Error.

This did not yield a significant Electrode Site × Time × Treatment interaction, F (1, 44) = 0.35, p = .555, η 2 = .00. CRN Analyses of the CRN magnitudes did not yield any main or interaction effects at either FCz or Fz, all p s > .10, apart from a marginally significant main effect of time at Fz, F (1, 44) = 3.04, p = .088, η 2 = .06, due to a decreased CRN at this site at the end of treatment, M i-j = – 0.32, SE = 0.18, p = .088, 95% CI [– 0.69, 0.05]. ∆ ERN The results from analyses of ∆ERN magnitude mirrored those of ERN magnitude.

For number of fixations and fixation duration, the repetition effect was marginally significant for the patients ( P = 0.088 and P = 0.074, respectively).

1 -D), but the positive relationship between the difference in antibody level between the first and the last egg and FA was marginally significant ( r 2 = 0.17, β ±SE = 10.39±5.72, F 1,16 = 3.30, P = 0.0881).

We also performed PERMANOVA test to explore the differences of beta diversity between groups, which revealed a marginally significant difference between RAI and nonRAI subgroups (R 2 = 0.0181, P = 0.0882).

However, a marginally significant difference in PRI ( P =0.0883, Figure 1B ) was observed in PMs.

EHO biases analysis The initial logistic regression model using subset A with EHO as a predictor and exposure source as an outcome was marginally significant (Wald test, p = 0.0885).

For Negative Control Single Cut animals, Fisher’s Exact Test revealed a marginally significant association between group and the location of labeling, i.e., within or beyond the boundaries established by Unoperated Control animals ( P = 0.0885; Table 1 ).

Significant ( p < 0.0001) and marginally significant ( p = 0.0887) associations between CEA level and DFS were observed in HER2-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers, respectively (Fig. 3c , d ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between consistency and priming in reaction times [ F (1, 30) = 3.09, p = 0.089], but most importantly, the three way interaction between group, consistency and priming was also significant [ F (1, 30) = 4.18, p = 0.050].

CDK12 inactivating mutations were enriched in EAS ancestry in prostate cancer (Supplementary Table 1 ) and were marginally significant after adjusting for metastatic status available in the MSK-IMPACT cohort only ( P = 0.089, OR = 2.195).