“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (1, 59) = 3.88, p = 0.05, η 2 p = 0.06, because children who were given credibility information at test ( M = 0.56, SD = 0.14) reported more details from the credible website than those not provided with information ( M = 0.47, SD = 0.15).

Also, the intervention was associated with a negative change in EQ5D compared with the baseline assessment; the association was marginally significant (β = −0.05; p = .050).

Three-year OS was marginally significant in patients with stage I/II compared with patients with stage III (64.3% vs 19.4%; P =.05).

The difference in well-being between boys and girls was marginally significant ( β = 0.16, p = 0.05), yet sex was retained as a control variable in subsequent models.

A marginally significant interaction between bacterial manipulation and diet type ( F 8 , 30 = 2.35; p = 0.05) on the antibacterial activity of hemolymph was also observed.

Furthermore, Discomfort was marginally significant ( p > 0.05), which meant that girls felt more comfortable than boys during their social performance.

Urban households also showed a marginally significant lower likelihood of open defecation compared to rural households (Coef.: −1.1; p = 0.050).

Unemployment showed a marginally significant difference between the High-distress class and the Low-distress class ( p = 0.05).

In the cognitive reappraisal subscale, the ASMR self-reporters who have watched ASMR videos had marginally significant higher scores than non-ASMR subjects ( t (124) = 1.66, p = 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.30), with the ASMR group scoring 4.53 (SD = 1.12) and the non-ASMR group scoring 4.20 (SD = 1.16).

There was a marginally significant difference between groups in overall accuracy, with poorer face-matching accuracy in the insomnia group ( t 100 = 1.96, p = 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.43).

We initially specified a two-sided selection using p-value cutoffs driving publication bias for significant and marginally significant studies as p = 0.05 and 0.1.

Statistical significance was defined as Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted FDR < 0.05, and marginally significant trends were defined as P < .05.

Additionally, a marginally significant association was observed after adjusting for the stenosis degree and time interval between HR-MRI and stroke (β=0.190, 95% CI [−0.002, 0.337], P =0.05) ( Table 2 ).

There were no statistically significant differences at any of the time points, except at time 0, which had a marginally significant difference (p = 0.05).

There were marginally significant differences ( p < 0.05) between CHIKV copy numbers in mosquitoes fed first with ZIKV and then with CHIKV compared to mosquitoes exposed to an uninfectious blood meal first (UC vs.

During follow-up, 13 patients died (11 in the EBL group and 2 in the EVO group); the survival rate was marginally significant between two groups ( P =0.050).

This association was attenuated and marginally significant after adjustment for BMI (OR = 0.77, p=0.05) and no longer significant after adjustment for VAT (OR = 0.83, p=0.18).

If we require the opposite-sign isoform associations to be marginally significant at p < 0.05, then 47.9% (663 of 1383) of the F-test-exclusive eGenes have significant opposite-sign associations, while only 22.1% (144 of 651) of eGenes found by both methods fit this criterion.

Furthermore, a marginally significant effect of appearance on likability was found ( F 3,129 =2.63, P =.05, η p 2 =0.061).

However, a marginally significant main effect of feature, F (2,57) = 3.15, p = 0.05, ƞ p 2 = 0.10, and an interaction of feature and instruction was found, F (2,57) = 8.72, p < 0.001, ƞ p 2 = 0.23.

The difference is marginally significant: p < 0.05, two-tailed.

Among the top 2% of genes with consistently higher white expression than purple, there were 18 significant terms ( P <0.01) and 42 marginally significant terms ( P <0.05) exhibiting enrichment.

This also revealed a marginally significant group difference in recovery from the stop signal task (estimated group difference (stop task - post baseline) = 0.25 ± 0.13 log(ms 2 ), t(629) = 1.94, P = 0.05), and in change and recovery from the RVP task (estimated group difference = 0.2 ± 0.11 log(ms 2 ), t(629) = 1.74, P = 0.08).

In addition, these regions are marginally more predictive earlier in learning relative to later in learning, with left pars orbitalis (or inferior frontal gyrus) showing a marginally significant ( p < 0.05) decrease in predictive accuracy at M 300.

In contrast, exposure to organizational vision had a marginally significant negative indirect effect through CWB ( β = −0.02, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.00] ).