“marginally significant”

With respect to the accuracy rate shown in Figure 2(b) , by using the repeated-measure stimuluscondition(congruentvs.incongruentvs.neutral) × coffeecondition(normalvs.coffee), ANOVA results demonstrated a marginally significant effect for stimulus condition ( F = 2.45, df = 2, P = 0.095) and no significant effect for coffee condition.

Furthermore, the three-way interaction of Group × Correctness × Condition was marginally significant [ F (1,30) = 2.97, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.09].

Beta There were significant main effects of region ( p < 0.001) and group ( p = 0.031), along with a marginally significant Region × Condition × Group interaction ( p = 0.095) and a non-significant effect of condition.

In the 400- to 600-ms time window, the three-way interaction of prime-target relatedness, type of relatedness and anteriority was significant ( F (1,29) = 6.67, p = 0.015), and the three-way interaction of prime-target relatedness, anteriority and laterality was marginally significant ( F (2,58) = 2.45, p = 0.095).

Additionally, there was a marginally significant main effect of group on RT, F (1,36) = 2.943, p = 0.095, partial η 2 = 0.076, with post-hoc tests showing that the RT of music trainees was longer than that of non-music trainees.

A two-way ANOVA with the factors odor (2: chocolate, popcorn) × social identity (2: Swiss primed with Swiss identity, non-Swiss primed with Swiss identity) on intensity difference scores revealed a marginally significant interaction [ F (1, 48) = 2.90, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.057].

However, the risk of soft tissue disorders such as tendon injuries was marginally significant (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.97–1.49; p = 0.095).

Moreover, a marginally significant effect was also found for IMPs from pretreatment to posttreatment ( p = .095).

However, a marginally significant difference was observed in calciferol levels, with higher concentrations in farm samples ( p =0.095).

There was a weak, marginally significant positive effect of invasion on B. americanum abundance ( p = 0.095; Appendix S1 : Table S1 , Figure S5 ).

For the Orbicularis Oculi muscle we found a significant effect of Time ( F (1,30) = 24.378, p <.001, η p 2 = .45) due to higher EMG activation in the second time window; a trend-like main effect of AU25&26 ( F (2,60) = 2.65, p = .079, η p 2 = .08), and two marginally significant interactions for AU12 X AU6 X AU25&26 (F(4,120) = 2.03, p = .095, η p 2 = .06), and AU12 X Time ( F (1,30) = 3.39, p = .075, η p 2 = .1).

Physical leisure activities in Model 1c-3 presented a marginally significant association between monthly exercise and cognitive functioning at T2 (B = 0.19, p = 0.095).

Regarding the effects of reactive aggression, we also detected a marginally significant group, emotion, and electrode interaction effect [ F (8,352) = 1.99, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.04].

It became marginally significant when demographic variables were not controlled for ( p = 0.095).

Furthermore, excellent reduction compared to other quality of reduction caused a marginally significant reduction in VAS pain score (unstandardized β coefficient: -0.89, 95% CI: -1.93 to -0.16, p = 0.095) (Table 5 ).

Community trait dispersion patterns In our linear mixed model, SES values were significantly different between sampling season (χ 2 = 8.9, df = 1, p = 0.003) and trait type (χ 2 = 35.6, df = 4, p < 0.001), but the interaction was marginally significant (χ 2 = 8.0, df = 4, p = 0.095).

Moreover, FOXM1 expression in tumor cells was found to be obviously associated with pT status ( P = 0.014) and marginally significant with pM status ( P = 0.095, Table 2 ).

Additionally, baseline cortisol levels were positively associated with the composite benefit score, though this finding was marginally significant ( p = 0.095).

Positive aging perception significantly enhanced gerontechnology confidence (β=.462; P <.001) and comfort (β=.323; P =.047) and exhibited a marginally significant positive relationship with control beliefs (β=.228; P =.095).

Despite the smaller sample size the confidence effect was still marginally significant in this between-subject analysis, F(1, 120) = 2.85, p<.095, η 2 p = .02.

Moreover, the high E 2 group showed a tendency for long naps in the daytime, and the difference was marginally significant ( Figure 5 E, P = 0.095, rank-sum test; and Figure 5 A).

Additionally, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between time and test, exhibiting a medium effect after the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied (F = 2.659, p = 0.095, partial η2 = 0.081, medium effect).

This group difference for detail-based viewing in the relational condition remained marginally significant after adjusting for age and gender, F (1, 34) = 2.96, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.080. 3.2.2.2.1.

Comparative improvements were also marginally significant for resilience ( P = 0.095) and perceived social support from family ( P = 0.074).

Like Study 1, American cultural priming also led to a higher dialectical self‐concept than neutral priming, but it was marginally significant, M = 4.75; SD = 0.57, t (269) = 2.09, p = .095, d = 0.314, 95% CI [−0.041, 0.669].