“marginally significant”

For Impulse/Self-Control, touchscreen group remained not significant, F (1, 42) = 1.048, p = 0.312, η 2 = 0.024, but background TV was marginally significant, F (1, 42) = 2.863, p = 0.098, η 2 = 0.064, with more background TV in the home being associated with poorer performance. 3.3.

A main effect of neuroticism scores was marginally significant (F(1,18) = 3.04, p = 0.098) for fear ratings, resulting from fear ratings being higher in participants with higher neuroticism scores.

Pooled by treatment, the difference is marginally significant (P = 0.098; one-tailed Fisher’s exact test).

Although marginally significant, ICCs with IDH1 / 2 mutations tended to show less frequent perineural invasion ( P = 0.098).

During the second bloom, PP T amounted to highest values of 11.3 ± 5.0 μmol C L -1 d -1 at t53 for high p CO 2 , and 6.0 ± 1.9 μmol C L -1 d -1 at day t57 for low p CO 2 At the peak of the second bloom, PP T appeared to be higher at high p CO 2 , though this difference was marginally significant and dependent on time ( Table 2 ; rmANOVA, Time x CO 2 treatment, P = 0.098).

In the executive function tests, while there was no difference in TMT-A, there was a marginally significant interaction between group and time (F (1, 52) =2.83, p =0.098, η 2 = 0.051) in TMT-B.

Another SNP that was also considered in the GRS due to its marginally significant P value ( P = 0.098) was rs4784227.

The Angelus fiber group displayed a marginally significant difference compared to the conventional composite group ( P = 0.098).

However, a one-way ANOVA showed marginally significant differences between the three expertise-level groups when observing surgical procedures, F (2,27) = 2.53, p = 0.098.

3.1.2 Arousal The main effect of modality was marginally significant ( F (1,85) = 2.79, p = 0.0987), suggesting a potential trend toward higher arousal in the MV condition (Δ (Post‐Pre Mean) = 0.389) compared to the M condition (Δ (Post‐Pre Mean) = −0.148).

An ANOVA analysis revealed that the interaction between ISI and Confidence was marginally significant (F 3, 83 = 2.16, P = 0.0987), while the main effect of ISI was not significant (F 1, 0.92 = 0.96, P = 0.52).

Conversely, for time spent looking elsewhere and off task (Q4), we found a significant negative effect on learning ( B = −6.96, p = .004), and likewise but marginally significant for looking at materials, but mind wandering (Q3) ( B = −9.42, p = .0989)(see Figures 4c and 4d respectively).

In the supplementary materials we also showed that when P3 amplitude is the independent variable and depression is the dependent variable, within-person P3 amplitude significantly predicts depression on incongruent trials (p = .01) and the association is marginally significant on congruent trials (p = .099).

Subsequent post-hoc tests indicated that the normal group had significantly lower bias RT compared to first-episode SZ patients ( P = 0.029) and MDD patients (marginally significant at P = 0.099).

The same lagged effect in Model II showed a positive linear trend that was marginally significant (rACC = >LA: LT(RE...R3), t (13) = 1.776, P <0.099).

The quality of roof material showed a marginally significant negative association with anemia levels ( β = −0.002, SE = 0.001, CR = −1.649, p = 0.099), suggesting that better roofing may be linked to lower anemia levels.

A 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA on the extracted mean signal in the bilateral amygdala, with DRUG and CONDITION as within-subject factors, revealed a marginally significant interaction effect ( F (1,14)=3.13, P =0.099, partial η 2 =0.18) indicating marginally stronger amygdala activity on the emotion>shape-matching contrast in the Zembrin (percentage of signal change; 0.61, SD=0.53) compared with placebo (0.38, SD=0.23) condition.

Under these conditions we found that lumacaftor significantly reduces THP-1 phagocytosis (p < 0.01), and a marginally significant trend (p = 0.099) suggesting that ivacaftor may also reduce phagocytosis.

The residence of caregivers, whether rural or urban, displayed a marginally significant association with depression (χ 2 (1)= 2.721, p = 0.099).

Regarding gender differences, the relationship between resilience and the percentage of males was marginally significant, Q model = 2.719, df = 1, p = 0.099.

Between-group differences in these correlation coefficients were statistically significant for anhedonia ( Z = −3.67, p < 0.001) and marginally significant for resilience ( Z = −1.29, p = 0.099).

A marginally significant association between total flavonoid intake and reduced CVD mortality was found (summary RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70–1.03; p = 0.099) [ 80 ].

In the time window of the ERAN component (140–240 ms), the main effect of developmental pattern was significant, F (2, 62) = 7.246, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.206; the interaction between developmental pattern and anteriority was significant, F (4, 124) = 5.867, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.173; the interaction between developmental pattern and hemisphere was marginally significant, F (4, 124) = 2.001, p = 0.099, η p 2 = 0.067; the interaction between developmental pattern, hemisphere and anteriority was significant, F (8, 248) = 2.501, p = 0.013, η p 2 = 0.082; and the main effect of hemisphere and anteriority and their interaction were all significant, F s ≥ 5.234, p s < 0.001, η p 2 s ≥ 0.157.

A marginally significant negative effect of prolongation days on hair cortisol concentrations was found ( p = 0.099).

The baseline-by-time interaction for assessing regression to the mean (RTM) was marginally significant for anxiety ( p = 0.099) but not for sensory hyperresponsiveness ( p = 0.435), indicating minimal RTM influence.