“marginally significant”

Simple slope analyses (See Figure 1 ) indicated that perceived parent support was associated with risk-taking behaviors marginally significant at low levels of self-control ( b simple slope = −0.04, t = −1.68, p = 0.09), but the association was not significant statistically at high levels of self-control ( b simple slope = 0.03, t = 1.29, p = 0.20).

Based on logistic regression, the effect of conspecific density on the probability of mortality differed by species: brown shrimp exhibited a marginally significant trend towards D-D mortality when also accounting for shrimp size ( p = 0.09) while white shrimp did not exhibit density-dependence ( p = 0.58; Fig 5 ).

The overall model for emotion to gender switching was marginally significant [ R 2 = 0.24, adjusted R 2 = 0.10, F (15,75) = 1.581, p = 0.09].

Physicians that heard of ASD from either the TV or the radio were less knowledgeable about misconceptions regarding ASD than physicians who did not, however this association was marginally significant (AMS: 0.51 vs. 0.62; P = 0.09).

A follow-up analysis examining the effects of APOE4 on pain unpleasantness adjusting for differences in stimulus intensity at each percept level across genetic groups indicated that the pattern of results was little changed, with the APOE4 main effect becoming marginally significant ( p < 0.09) but the overall effect size increasing slightly (from d = 0.26 to d = 0.33).

Similar to Gershberg and Shimamura ( 1995 ), this analysis revealed a marginally significant effect of Condition [ F (3,28) = 2.39, p = .09] with participants performing significantly better on the Full-cues ( M = .64, SD = .18) than the No-cues ( M = .58, SD = .17) condition ( t = 2.59, df = 31, p < .05), whilst performance on the Encoding-cues ( M = .60, SD = .18) and Retrieval-cues ( M = .60, SD = .19) conditions fell in between.

Patients with brain metastasis ( n = 13) showed a marginally significant difference in the median PFS1 compared to patients without brain metastasis ( n = 27) (13.1 months vs. 35.8 months, p = 0.09) ( Figure S1 ). 3.3.

2A ), ANOVA with 9 levels of probabilities revealed a significant main effect of probability, F(8,120) = 3.57, p = 0.016, a significant linear main effect, F(1,15) = 5.33, p = 0.036, and a marginally significant quadratic effect, F(1,15) = 3.28, P = 0.09.

We compared the locomotor response to morphine of these two groups, and marginally significant difference was found [main effects of group (successful/ failed): F 1, 45 = 3.01, P = 0.09; time: F 13, 585 = 11.17, P <0.001; interaction: F 13, 585 = 3.54, P <0.001; Fig 2A ].

Percent changes in the quadriceps muscle CSA in the RT + HP group were significantly greater than those in the CON, HP and RT groups ( P < 0.05, Table 2 ), and percent changes in the quadriceps muscle CSA between the RT and CON groups were marginally significant ( P = 0.09, Table 2 ).

Moreover, a marginally significant three-way interaction was found between type frequency, token frequency, and constituency ( F (1, 29) = 3.05, p = 0.09, ƞ 2 = 0.10), indicating that constituency status (i.e., phrasal vs. non-phrasal) might modulate frequency effects.

However, there was a marginally significant indirect effect (11.5%, p < 0.09) for non-citizen Latinxs only. 3.1 Sensitivity analysis Appendix Table A displays the results of current employment as a covariate in the multivariable binary logistic regression of immigration status and ethnicity with food insecurity, including sociodemographic, familial, COVID-19 stressors, and pre-pandemic SEP.

GPP chl a was reduced by similar amounts on d 4 in Avicennia and Ecklonia (marginally significant at p = 0.09) plots, but interestingly after 17 d Avicennia plots had higher GPP chl a (by 23%) compared to control plots.

The interaction between Lag and Task was marginally significant, F (2, 56) = 2.6, MSE = .003, p <.09.

Education showed a marginally significant negative association with vulnerability scores ( B = −0.59, SE = 0.35, p =.09), whereas age was not significantly related.

Results Alcohol intake (≥20 g/day) showed a marginally significant association with the incidence of eCLE in participants without hiatal hernia (0 vs. ≥20 g/day; odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92–2.85, P = 0.09) but not in participants with hiatal hernia (0 vs. ≥20/day; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.59–1.65; P = 0.95).

A marginally significant effect for BT eye was observed for the interaction of time and breed in response to exercise (ANOVA p = 0.09).

A 2 (tested, control) X 2 (with-context, without-context) X 2 (neutral item, misled item) ANOVA revealed a marginally significant 3-way interaction, F (1, 116) = 2.95, p = .09, ƞ 2 p = .03.

Permutation tests comparing TAFs and TLFs showed that of the six interaction attributes tested, only nestedness and centralization betweenness showed marginally significant differences between TAFs and TLFs ( p = 0.090 and 0.088, respectively; Table S8 ). 3.3.

Under a random-effects allelic model, there was marginally significant increased risk of sarcoidosis for -307A allele among Caucasians (OR=1.25; 95% CI: 0.96-1.62; P=0.09) but not among Asians (OR=2.12; 95% CI: 0.31-14.27; P=0.44).

Orienting There was a marginally significant difference between CBT/MT and control groups in RT difference [ t (199) = 1.68, p = 0.09, Cohen's d = 0.24] and no significant differences in % correct difference scores [ t (199) = −1.06, p = 0.29].

A marginally significant correlation was found between the coupling measure and tau in the entorhinal cortex ( r = 0.17, p = 0.09).

This difference was not significant for UBW, MAC, MAMC ( P > 0.05); was marginally significant for BMI, TSF ( P = 0.09, P = 0.06) and was significant for BSF ( P = 0.001).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between stimulus contrast and group (F (2.5,84) = 2.4, P = 0.09), reflecting a larger difference between the groups for higher stimulus contrasts than for low stimulus contrasts (Figure 3 D).

The interaction between time and group was marginally significant, F (2, 71) = 2.50, p = 0.090, η p 2 = 0.02, as did the main effect of group , F (2, 71) = 2.45, p = 0.094, η p 2 = 0.04.