“marginally significant”

Due to few cases and deaths, TB has a marginally significant impact on case fatality for the 20–29-year age-group for both sexes combined at Lyster sanatorium ( P = 0.095 for a case fatality of 23.8%) and at the two sanatoriums combined ( P = 0.003 for a case fatality of 19.6%).

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).

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.

The random effect likelihood ratio test for the pair random intercept was marginally significant ( p = 0.095), with ICC of 0.471.

Finally the Stimulation site * Humanness interaction was marginally significant ( F (1,19) = 3.09; p = 0.095), with a poorer accuracy for categorization of natural voice sounds in the larynx-stimulated group.

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 ).

The main effect of hemisphere was marginally significant, F (1, 8) = 3.58, p = 0.095.

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

As shown in Table 3 , the PSA level in the diabetics was slightly lower than that in the non-diabetics, and this difference was marginally significant after adjusting for age and BMI (1.05 vs. 1.14; p = 0.095).

Linear regressions revealed a marginally significant negative effect of α-T on biomass of target plants ( F 1,14 = 3.19, P = 0.0959, r 2 = 0.19), and a significantly negative effect of BBT on biomass of target plants ( F 1,14 = 4.71, P = 0.0476, r 2 = 0.25).

Multivariate analysis revealed that 2 or more metastases in para-aortic nodes is independent risk factors for disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]=1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.10–2.72; p=0.019) and are marginally significant for overall survival (HR=1.58; 95% CI=0.92–2.72; p=0.096) compared to no or a single metastasis.

Happiness A mixed ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction between valence and component, F (1,454) = 2.79, p = 0.096, η p 2 = 0.01, which was not qualified by a 3-way interaction, F (3,454) = 1.80, p = 0.147.

The effect was significant for 14/92 neurons (2 negative and 12 positive) and marginally significant at the population level (second-order t test: t(91) = 1.68; p = 0.096; Fig 4L ).

Score on Conflict ANT was marginally significant, β = −0.150, p = 0.096, and no other variables were significant, p s > 0.116.

For the strawberry–cherry flavour pair, this analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of colour condition, F (2, 176) = 2.38; p = .096; η p 2 = .026; ɛ = 1.0, and a significant interaction between colour condition and group, F (2,176) = 3.27; p = .04; η p 2 = .036; ɛ = 1.0.

Finally, after FDR correction, a marginally significant two-way APOE ε4 ∗ HpVR interaction for delayed recall in MCI subjects was observed ( p = 0.096), and thus this finding requires replication.

A one-way ANOVA analysis of JNDs showed that there was a marginally significant difference between the three background colors ( Figure 3 ), F(2, 44) = 2.48, p = .096, η p 2 = 0.06.

The difference in P100 is marginally significant ( p = 0.096).

at least one low) (HR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.02–1.71, Wald’s p = 0.034, log-rank p = 0.034), while when combined with TOP2A the prognostic value for the co-expression was marginally significant (HR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.95–1.80, Wald’s p = 0.096, log-rank p = 0.095) ( S3 Table ).

The interaction between the two factors was marginally significant, F (1, 15) =3.15, p = 0.096.

The same analysis was repeated for the identified correlations with all outliers included, which returned marginally significant correlations between trait anxiety and the left pars opercularis ( r = – 0.215, P = 0.096), and between trait anxiety and the negative bias in RT ( r = 0.226, P = 0.081).

When the goal was close to being reached, there was a marginally significant effect of number of donors, B = .73, z = 1.66, p = .096.

The E-Fit group showed a marginally significant interaction effect in the whole body areal BMD at the 6- ( p = 0.096) and 12-month follow-ups ( p = 0.085).

The association between the donation history and intention to donate again was marginally significant ( p = 0.096).

Results suggested that the main effect of gender on prejudice was marginally significant, F (1,66) = 2.85, p = 0.096, η p 2 = 0.041, with female participants ( M = 2.91, SD = 0.63) holding more prejudice than male participants ( M = 2.62, SD = 0.81).