“only marginally significant”

1 The difference between positive and neutral content was only marginally significant ( b = −0.90 [−1.88, 0.083], SE = 0.50, t (37,358) = −1.79, P = 0.072, R 2 = 0.021).

Using a linear combination post-estimation test, we find that the comparison between the indirect and direct empathy conditions is only marginally significant ( β = .749, p = .072).

Late (250–600 ms) A repeated measures ANOVA indicated a medium but only marginally significant linear trend across the three emotion conditions (calm, happy, fear) from 250 to 600 ms after stimulus onset, F (1, 46) = 3.38, p =.072, η2 p =.10 (model controlled for child age and gender).

A partially different profile emerged from the SDQ filled in by the fathers, for which the multivariate effect of Group was only marginally significant, F (5, 44) = 2.193, p = 0.072, η 2 = 0.200.

On the other hand, the post-RT pWL was only marginally significant to PFS in training cohort (p = 0.072, HR = 0.59[0.33–1.04]) and not significant in testing cohort (p = 0.278) under multivariable Cox regression.

Although the ME on binge drinking was greatest among Hispanics, the relationship between MWS and binge drinking was only marginally significant relative to Whites (aOR=0.67, p =0.072), and the overall effect of the interaction was not statistically significant.

The effect of maternal sensitivity was only marginally significant, β = −0.155, S.E. = 0.086, p = 0.072, and contrary to our hypothesis, there was no main effect of infants’ mother-directed gaze, β = −0.039, S.E. = 0.09, p = 0.66.

Although this increase of response priming was numerically still larger than the analogous alerting signal based increase for priming by novel primes, this difference was only marginally significant, F (1, 31) = 3.46, p = 0.072, η 2 p = 0.10.

When both direct and indirect effects are considered, the total effect of resilience on distress is negative but only marginally significant (β = –0.081, p = 0.072), suggesting that resilience alleviates distress mainly through its positive relationship with hope rather than by a strong direct impact.

In the control group, a negative correlation was observed between the power in the delta band and the total difference score in imagined memories following hypnosis (i.e., total Δ MCQ for imagined memories) at frontal region, r = −0.677, p = 0.045, and an analogous trend was observed at central and temporal regions; although, only marginally significant, r = −0.624, p = 0.072, and r = −0.626, p = 0.071, respectively.

The mediation analysis revealed that when social knowledge was included as a mediator between visual statistical learning and receptive language, the indirect pathway (ab = 0.065, S E = 2.80, 95% [1.181, 12.029]) was only marginally significant ( z = 1.80, p = 0.072), therefore providing evidence of directionality as proposed in the original model.

In Figure 7 A there appears to be a trend such that the congruency had a smaller effect in larger categories, suggesting that larger familiar size differences were processed more robustly and more successfully resisted interference from image size; however, this interaction was only marginally significant, F (3, 33) = 2.61, p = 0.072, η p 2 = 0.225.

In humans In humans, the overall combined effect size for the total set of 11 studies (406 participants) was only marginally significant, g = 0.25, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.53], p = 0.073 ( Fig. 7 ) in a heterogeneous set of studies, Q (9) = 39.57, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 74.73.

For men who used the innovation, the rate ratio of AMR recalled decreased by a factor of 0.355, although this effect was only marginally significant ( P = 0.073) (see Additional file 3 : Table S4).

On the other hand, the difference in this probability between patients with baseline weight 59–67 kg and those >67 kg was only marginally significant (p = 0.073, log-rank test).

Planned comparisons at the 50 ms SOA condition showed that mediated priming was significantly smaller than direct priming ( p < 0.003) and was also smaller than backward priming, although the latter effect was only marginally significant ( p = 0.073).

5 f), although the post-hoc tests were only marginally significant with the greatest fraction consumed for V. corrugata compared to R. philippinarum ( p = 0.073, Table S2).

The three‐way interaction between belief domain, belief type, and age group was only marginally significant ( χ 2 (1) = 3.22, p = 0.073), see Figure 4 .

Sex also influenced HAM-D scores, with males showing a greater response than females (p = 0.018), although this trend was only marginally significant for HAM-A (p = 0.073).

A previous study in this site observed a small negative and only marginally significant effect ( P = 0.073) of plant diversity on yield, and this influence was driven mostly by herbicide application in barley monoculture treatment and not due to plant richness per se 39 .

The proportion of recapping among all cells was positively correlated with mite infestation levels (varroas), although the result was only marginally significant (ρ = 0.31, p = 0.073).

The response time of congruent scenes (2588 ± 141 ms) was smaller than incongruent scenes (2631 ± 144 ms), but the difference (23 ms) was only marginally significant, F (1,23) = 3.53, p = 0.073, (see Figure 3 B).

In the adjusted analysis, the association between thyroid AEs and PFS became only marginally significant (adjusted HR, 0.370; 95% CI, 0.125–1.099; P = 0.073), while older age was not no longer a significant risk factor (Table 2 ).

While the lengths of rays 4 and 5 were significantly increased in RA-treated fish compared to control animals (t-test, Mann-Whitney respectively, p<0.05), we found only marginally significant differences in the length of ray 3 (t-test, p = 0.073).

This effect was however only marginally significant in the overall analysis (Permanova, disturbance × oyster bed interaction: R 2 = 0.076, P = 0.073).