“marginally significant”

Highly attenuated genes at the protein level exhibit varying responses: RPT6 shows a significant mRNA attenuation ( t test, P = 0.01), and RPT2 and SCL1 also show a marginally significant mRNA attenuation ( t test, P = 0.1 and 0.07).

In the Botanical Garden (data-subset I), it was slightly (marginally significant, p < 0.1) affected by tree age and significantly by herbivory (Table 1 ).

The two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated a marginally significant main effect of stage (F (1, 18) = 3.24, p < 0.1) and a significant marginally interaction between group and stage (F (1, 18) = 3.04, p < 0.1).

The results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05 and marginally significant if 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10.

Results are considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

In comparison, the CFLI group showed significant improvement between pre- and post-test on two of the seven measures, narrative macrostructure and clausal density, with large effect sizes for both measures ( r = 0.90 and 0.91, respectively, both p = 0.04), and a large and marginally significant gain for the ALL Listening Comprehension subtest ( r = 0.73, p = 0.10).

In high-inequality settings, the interaction is negative and marginally significant (−0.099, SE = 0.055, p < 0.10).

The relevant coefficient was also marginally significant for migration between SA4s (OR = 0.91; p < 0.1).

Correlations between L3 vertebra and distal radius were marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

The results demonstrated that LSSB had a significant effect on insiders’ identification with the leader (slope = 0.44, p < 0.01) and that LSSB had a marginally significant effect on outsiders’ identification with the leader (slope = 0.18, p < 0.10).

All results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10.

Results from both parametric and ML models indicate that the effect of log detection time delay is marginally significant (p<0.10) in slightly reducing expenditure.

As expected, the judges rated participants in the high-power group as significantly more powerful ( M = 4.78, SD = 1.69) than those in the low-power group [ M = 2.17, SD = 1.38, t (68) = 7.06, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.72] and marginally significant more power than those in the control group [ M = 4.18, SD = 1.02, t (62) = 1.68, p = 0.10, Cohen’s d = 0.43].

34 Statistical significance was defined as a P value <0.05, with marginally significant results (0.05< P ≤0.10) also reported.

Variables that had a marginally significant relationship with PNC utilisation ( p < 0.1) were considered for the final model.

We found that internet use had a significant effect on depressive symptoms (β=–.56; conditional R 2 =0.58) while only a marginally significant effect ( P <.10) was found for social relationships (β=2.91; conditional R 2 =0.58) and cultural activities (β=0.28; conditional R 2 =0.68).

For predictive factors that were marginally significant ( P < 0.1), we calculated the ORs and 95% CIs in multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses.

The overall multivariate test for a time effect on the 3 content dependent variables, based on Wilks’ criteria, was marginally significant, F(3, 28)=2.67, p<0.10, partial η 2 =0.22.

Among all the phenotypes, the relative abundance of the anaerobic phenotype showed a significant positive relationship with salinity, and the relative abundance of the stress-tolerant phenotype showed a marginally significant ( P < 0.1) positive relationship with salinity, while the relative abundance of facultative anaerobic and biofilm-forming phenotypes displayed a significantly negative relationship with salinity ( Fig. 4 ).

However, their effects were marginally significant at p < 0.10, explaining why Model 1 was significant.

For younger participants, there was a marginally significant positive correlation between the number of fixations made during encoding and subsequent recognition (Pearson's r = 0.18, n = 84, p = 0.10), and a significant positive correlation between the number of transitions and subsequent recognition ( r = 0.41, n = 84, p < 0.001).

Grade 1 falls (the least severe, causing no injury) were the most common in both years, and showed a marginally significant decrease in number (0.05 < p <0.1), while the differences for the more severe falls were never significant.

This differential distribution of the valence effect across midline electrodes was reflected by a marginally significant valence × electrode interaction (F(2,30) = 2.5, P = 0.1).

Interestingly, a marginally significant interaction effect was observed between taste and hygiene ratings [ F (1 , 18) = 4.09, p < 0.1, η 2 = 0.19] (see Figure 3B ).

A linear regression with random effects with RT as the dependent variable shows a marginally significant effect of SVO ( B = −0.58, 95% CI [−1.27 to 0.11], P value = 0.1), and a significant effect of trial number ( B = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.011 to −0.0091], P value < 0.001, Wald χ 2 = 413.20).