“only marginally significant”

By contrast, in the model using Days 1 to 3 RT, the neocortical tau × age group interaction was only marginally significant ( β = −0.36, 95% CI = [−0.73, 0.02], p = 0.061).

Childhood trauma did not predict mean HR (β = .013, t = 1.329, p = .780), and the interaction between childhood trauma and time was only marginally significant (β = −.239, t = −1.889, p = .061).

After EPLAs, non-papilloma patients had significant improvements in SNOT-22 and VAS ( P -values = 0.012 and 0.012, respectively), while those with papillomas had only marginally significant improvements in VAS ( P -value = 0.061).

However, the effect was only marginally significant in the explicit reward group, mean difference = 0.018 (SD = 0.011), 95% CI [− 0.005, 0.040], p = 0.061, and non-significant in the ambiguous reward group, mean difference = 0.021 (SD = 0.011), 95% CI [− 0.001, 0.044], p = 0.122.

In contrast, ln(IL-6) was only marginally significant (P = 0.061), while NEU, CRP, NLR, SII, and demographic variables (age and gender) showed no significant associations (all P > 0.05).

The rats in the SPS + KRG100 group showed an increased latency to enter the dark compartment for retention compared to the SPS group, although this result was only marginally significant ( p = 0.061).

In this experiment, participants in the Pinyin group (mean = 2.53; SD = 0.834) required on average more cycles than did participants in the Zhuyin group (mean = 2.00; SD = 0.655); however, this difference was only marginally significant [ F (1, 28) = 3.797, p = 0.061, partial η 2 = 0.119].

3 ); however, owing to the limited sample size, this relationship was only marginally significant for leptin ( p = 0.061) and even less significant for ObR ( p = 0.137).

When participants were in a concrete mind-set, they allocated more money to luxurious consumption ( M = 2919.44, SD = 285.99) than people in an abstract mind-set ( M = 2008.11, SD = 282.1), p = .026, as well as allocated less money to long-term savings ( M = 4708.56, SD = 408.09) than people in an abstract mind-set ( M = 5797.3, SD = 402.54), although this effect was only marginally significant, p = .061.

Our findings demonstrate that circulating leptin levels were significantly and positively associated LSM (β = 0.070; p = 0.024), even after adjustment for age, gender, and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), whereas the association with steatosis (as measured by CAP) was only marginally significant (β = 0.901; p = 0.061).

However, this difference was only marginally significant ( F (1, 6, 786.05) = 3.51; p = 0.061).

Concerning ratings of frequency and preference of use, although they were close to the mid-point of the 1 to 7 scale (1 = ‘only Catalan,’ 7 = ‘only Spanish’), they were slightly biased toward both using and preferring Catalan over Spanish ( M = 3.63, SD = 1.03, Minimum = 2.00, Maximum = 6.50, Range = 4.50, for frequency of use, and M = 3.51, SD = 1.32, Minimum = 1.00, Maximum = 5.75, Range = 4.75, for preference of use, respectively), although one-sampled t -tests revealed that the difference with respect to the mid-point of the scale was only marginally significant ( p = 0.061 and p = 0.050 for frequency and preference, respectively).

Floral larceny led to a decrease in the number of flowers per bout, although the impact on the latter was only marginally significant (−19.5%, p = 0.061; Fig. 3 b and Table S3 ).

Similar, but only marginally significant effects of age on network measure variability were also found for CC in the DMN (standardized beta = .41 and corrected p = .061 at density 20%) and for GE in the global network (standardized beta = .40 and corrected p = .07 at density 25%).

However, test of a difference in effect by whether the intervention was led by a pharmacist was only marginally significant (z = 1.87; p = 0.061).

Heifer DMI as a % of BW from d 0 to 14 decreased linearly ( P = 0.020) as time of rest increased; however, this impact was only marginally significant ( P ≥ 0.061) for the remainder of the trial.

Marginal mean increase for BR upon C addition was positively related to PC1; however, this relationship was only marginally significant (Pearson’s correlation, r = 0.513, n = 14, p = 0.061).

Likewise, males with wider carapaces were significantly less prone to bridge (Male CW: t 11 = -2.350, p = 0.019), and a negative relationship was also found for body mass, although this last relationship was only marginally significant (Male mass: t 11 = -1.668, p = 0.061; Figure 5c, d ; see also tables A4, A5 in Additional file 1 , and Figure A2 in Additional file 2 ).

A similar (but only marginally significant) pattern was observed for the dual positivity of ER and PR (10% cut-off) and the increased expression of these two lncRNAs (GNG12-AS1, p = 0.0611; NRSN2-AS1, p = 0.0738).

The evolutionary distinctiveness of species had a consistent positive effect on the frequency of species on the Hawaiian islands, but this effect was only marginally significant at the archipelago scale ( P = 0.062).

The mean number of fixations on lines 1 to 4 was significantly smaller for non-embedded as compared to embedded sentence structures in the item analysis, although this effect was only marginally significant in the subject-based analysis, F 1 (1, 31) = 3.8, p = .062; F 2 (1, 55) = 16.9, p < .001.

However, it is interesting to point out that the main effects of modality transition and CSI as well as the interaction of modality transition and CSI were significant for each group in the individual RT analyses (except the effect of modality transition in the manual/foot group, which was only marginally significant, F (1, 21) = 4.9, p = .062, η p 2 = .413.

Differences between Highly Advanced and Basic users were only marginally significant ( p = 0.062), and no other pairwise comparisons reached significance (Table S9–S10 in Supplementary Information S4 ).

At the P200 component, the amplitude for the chaser was slightly more positive (4.87 μV, SE = 2.42) than the amplitude for the inanimate agent (.19 μV, SE = 2.45), but the difference was only marginally significant t (17) = 1.99, p = 0.062.

Isolated SR rate was higher in the CRM-positive group than that of the CRM-negative group, although the p-value thereof was only marginally significant (40.5% vs. 29.7%, p =0.062) ( Table 2 ).