“only marginally significant”

First, there appears to be a drop again in mean density of %REC (29.4, 22.5, 22.1%), but this is only marginally significant, t (23) = 1.6, p = 0.08.

When this support fell, levels of stress rose but the change was only marginally significant ( p < 0.08).

Interestingly, seedling productivity was negatively correlated with the N deposition rate at the field sites, but this effect was only marginally significant ( r = -53, p = 0.08; Supplementary Fig. 9 ).

However, this result was only marginally significant ( B = 0.28, P = .08).

Drought effects were highly significant (P<0.001) when fitted before plot-level annual above-ground productivity ( Table 2A ), but they were only marginally significant (P = 0.08) when fitted after plot-level annual above-ground productivity ( Table 2B ).

sample, r = 0.13, ns ( n = 64), and only marginally significant for the Filipino sample, r = 0.22, p = 0.08 ( n = 62).

On the other hand, women who reported having contraceptive use support from their partners had a reduced risk of discontinuing, relative to women who said their partners did not support their contraceptive use, though this association was only marginally significant (aOR = 0.59, p = 0.08).

Follow-up t- tests indicated that memory bias values for negative items ( M = .63) were significantly different from those for positive items ( M = -1.04) and neutral items ( M = -1.32), t (37) ≥ 9.63, p < .001, η 2 ≥ .71, but the difference between positive and neutral was only marginally significant, t (37) = 1.82, p = .08.

The null model test indicated that the mosquito feeding patterns were aggregated among the localities, indicating that diet overlapped more than expected between the localities, although this finding was only marginally significant (C-score: 0.33, p = 0.08).

It is important to note that CBASP revealed clear benefits in self‐reported depression (BDI; g = 0.85, SE = 0.38, CI 95 [0.11–1.59], P = 0.03), whereas posttreat comparisons of CBASP and IPT in observer‐rated depression were only marginally significant (HAM‐D; g = 0.66, SE = 0.37, CI 95 [−0.07 to 1.39], P = 0.08).

The interaction between self-regulatory depletion and the imaginary item was only marginally significant but had a medium effect size [ F (3,80) = 3.18, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.04; see Figure 3 ].

This contrast was only marginally significant, F (1, 180) = 3.05, p = .08, η p 2 = .02.

Correlation estimates for PCB52 and PCB105 were similar; however, the estimate for PCB52, which has a lower log K oa , was significant ( p = 0.03), while the estimate for PCB105 was only marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

Only marginally significant interaction effects were found for frequency of and comfort with sexual orientation disclosure ( b frequency =0.03, p =0.08; b comfort =0.03, p =0.05; Table 4 ).

Nevertheless, when looking at each gender separately the association between hypertension and alcohol or tobacco use was only marginally significant in men with an OR of 1.4 (95% CI: 0.9 to 2.2; p=0.08) and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.0 to 2.7; p=0.07), respectively (Table 3 ).

Pressure ulcers among high-risk residents followed a similar trend, although pandemic and vaccination-related regression parameters for that QM were only marginally significant (p = .08).

This overrepresentation is only marginally significant ( p = 0.080, one-tailed randomization test).

This effect was significant for all age groups (all p s < .05): accuracy was significantly lower for the FB trials than for the TB trials and the control trials (which included MC and filler trials) in all age groups (all p s < .05), except in the 35–49 group for which the difference between the FB trials and the TB trials was only marginally significant ( p = .08).

However, only marginally significant differences were found for the phylogenetic membership (AMOVA on the unweighted UniFrac distance, P =0.08, Supplementary Fig. 6 ).

Conversely, males evidenced greater levels of androgen-induced gene 1 protein in comparison to embryos and females, but the difference between sexes was only marginally significant ( P = 0.08; Fig. 3 ).

Within-group comparisons pointed to a greater proportion of processing (sporadic + random errors) than morphosyntactic (consistent + systematic errors) in the control group (Wilcoxon Z = −7.65; p < 0.0001) and a similar profile although only marginally significant for PPA-S (Wilcoxon Z = −1.706; p = 0.08).

As hypothesised, participants in the negative in-group condition had a lower rated liking of orange juice than the negative out-group condition [p<0.05] and the neutral in-group condition, although the latter did not survive a Bonferroni correction and was only marginally significant [p = 0.08].

After removing these participants, the relationship between ΔRewP and BDI-II cognitive scores was only marginally significant [ r (113) = -0.17, P = 0.08, 95% CI (−0.34, −0.02)].

A significant difference between groups is observed between the PD-PIGD group and the control group ( p = 0.026), while the difference between the two Parkinson’s groups is only marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

The integrity of the understorey community is also slightly higher, but only marginally significant (p = 0.08).