“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant main effect of language, F (1,70) = 2.94, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.04, suggesting the English-speaking children ( M = 0.40, SD = 1.96) were more likely to imitated the demonstrated manner versus the path.

Importantly, a marginally significant interaction effect was found, b = 0.44, p = 0.09.

Cluster-statistics, conducted on the pre-post differences scores of the two groups, revealed a marginally significant cluster (cluster statistic, p = 0.09) at posterior electrode locations (Figures 4C,D ).

, slower gait speed was associated with more bone loss), and the sex is marginally significant (P=0.09).

Our analysis revealed that the impact on recent stock-outs of modern contraceptive methods was marginally significant with a relatively narrow confidence interval (-0.12, 95% CI:-0.25–0.02, p = 0.09), possibly suggesting that more exposed facilities may be less likely to experience stock-outs.

As in Study 1, Caucasian impressions showed above-chance accuracy: r = .24, p = .019, N = 100, 95% CI: .04 to .40 ( Table 4 ; the non-parametric correlation was marginally significant: tau = .13, p = .090).

The interaction between Feedback Condition and Feedback Valence was marginally significant (F(1,22) = 3.18, p = .09, η p 2 = .13).

The previous marginally significant interaction group x session between experimental and control groups on the Affection subscale [ F (1, 26) = 3.04, MSE = 7.34, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.09], and on the Assertiveness subscale remained marginally significant [ F (1, 26) = 11.27, MSE = 22.34, p < 0.01, η 2 p = 0.30] at the follow-up, as evidenced by the pair comparisons conducted (see Figure 3 Left and Right).

Spearman correlation analyses also showed that coefficients were negative for all FA with statistically significant results for EPA ( r = −0.82; p = 0.02; Figure 2 E) and marginally significant for DHA ( r = −0.57; p = 0.09; Figure 2 F) and AA ( r = −0.60; p = 0.054; Figure 2 G).

2 ), with only a marginally significant difference between the percentage of krill and copepods eaten (Kruskal–Wallis, χ 2 = 2.88, p -value = 0.09).

RT was marginally significant longer to target compared to familiar-probe pictures, F (1, 93) = 2.89, p = .09, η p 2 = 0.03.

A marginally significant difference was observed between the control and one-area adjustment groups (p = 0.09).

Repeated measures ANOVA with factors of electrode (C3 and C4), condition (control, learned, and transposed songs), and frequency (theta, mu, beta, and gamma) revealed a main effect of frequency ( F (3,13) = 2988.37, p = 1.0 e − 3) and a marginally significant interaction between frequency and electrode ( F (3,13) = 2.65, p = 0.09).

The difference between afternoon and evening shifts was marginally significant (Pearson Chi-Square = 3.07; CI 0.09-1.17; p = 0.09).

In comparison of total scores (maximum of 80 points) reached in the questionnaires, we have found marginally significant increase by 4.05 points after 4 weeks of Robuvit administration ( p = 0.0905).

This pattern was marginally significant, F (1,57) = 2.96, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.025, suggesting that Japanese speakers may apply the visual-based strategy to the similarity judgment better than English speakers.

There was also a marginally significant main effect of success for FC between the right dlPFC and the right parietal ROI ( F (1,18) = 9.63, p = .091, η 2 = 0.342).

After adjusting for BMI and year, the group effect of Health group vs Osteoporosis group became marginally significant under both Bray–Curtis and Jaccard measures (Bray: R2=0.201, F = 2.78, P = 0.091; Jaccard: R2=0.102, F = 1.35, P = 0.061), with neither covariate significant (BMI: P = 0.950; year: P = 0.226).

The difference between the RTs to targets containing non‐ foot semantic radicals preceded by foot image primes (645.16 ms) and to those preceded by control image primes (672.71 ms) were marginally significant ( t (30) = −1.748, p = 0.091).

For BN, changes in thoughts associated with ‘ dietary restraint ’ were marginally significant, indicating a slight increase from pre- ( M = 11.15, SE = 9.32) to post-binge ( M = 14.86, SE = 13.38; W = 99.5, p = 0.091, Cohen’s d = -0.055), whereas no significant change emerged for individuals with BED (pre: M = 12.0, SE = 9.76, post: M = 11.07, SE = 9.80; W = 39.5, p = 0.354, Cohen’s d = 0.20).

Within the healthy-weigh group, there was a marginally significant difference [ F (1,114) = 2.933, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.038].

However, a marginally significant association was found between the cetuximab and non-cetuximab groups ( P = 0.091).

It is important to note that negative symptoms were marginally significant ( p = 0.091), but post-hoc comparisons indicated that Biotype 3 exhibited greater symptom severity compared to Biotype 1 ( p = 0.040, Fig. 2A ).

Although the subsequent univariate tests indicated a small marginally significant difference among artistic careers in extrinsic motives and the intrinsic to extrinsic ratio the Bonferroni post hoc showed no differences among them (lowest p = 0.091) (for details, see Figure 8 ).

It had a very weak, non-significant positive correlation with BP (Spearman’s rho = 0.02, p = 0.626), and a weak, marginally significant positive correlation with comorbidities (Spearman’s rho = 0.068, p = 0.091).