Global analysis for habituation only revealed significant changes on the non-stimulated side (R2h_ns; F (19,597) =3.07), p <0.001) but effects on the stimulated side (R2h_s) were marginally non-significant (F (19,597) =1.46, p =0.095).
comalensis ( z = 2.20, P = 0.027), but this was a marginally non-significant difference for S . sexlineata ( z = −1.67, P = 0.095).
The interaction between apigenin and luteolin intake, assessed using a continuous model, suggested a marginally non-significant positive association ( β = 1.446, 95% CI: 0.933, 2.242, P = .095).
Similarly, the capsula interna volume model explained 11.2% of the variance, with age showing no significant effect ( p = 0.843) and sex being marginally non-significant ( p = 0.095), suggesting a potential relationship that may require further investigation.
A marginally non-significant trend was noted for the 1300–1499 CE interval within the mediterranean-like context (β = 0.691, p = 0.095) These results indicate that δ 13 C provides a more robust signal of environmental variation in diet among island populations in the Canaries, whereas δ 15 N appears more stable over time (Fig. 5 ).
Differences between litter sifting and pitfall trapping were marginally non-significant (pseudo-t = 2.23, p = 0.096).
When the minimal models were reconstructed in R software, all remained significant (with and without questing tick data: Tables U and V in S1 File ) except for the associations between white-footed mice and CC403 and between white-footed mice and RST1 type sequences, which were marginally non-significant (P = 0.097 and 0.056 respectively) in models with questing tick data included.
The interaction between preclinical duration and response strategy was significant for preclinical infectious durations of 2 (β = −0.11, p = 0.045) and 3 days (β = −0.40, p < 2.9 × 10 –12 ), suggesting that the mitigating effect of an optimal response becomes more pronounced as the preclinical phase lengthens; however, the interaction for a preclinical phase duration of 1 day was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.097).
The average cost for the two clones with multiple mutations is higher (23.5%) than for those with a single mutation (8.5%), though the difference is marginally non-significant (Welch’s t -test, t s = 2.1293, 1.6 d.f., one-tailed p = 0.0978).
There was a marginally non-significant trend for the quadratic term of group size (group size^2) to have a negative effect on nest growth ( p = 0.098) and it was therefore retained in the model.
Age positively predicts substance use (B = 0.039, SE = 0.004, 95% CI = 0.030, 0.047, p < 0.001), while being male has a marginally non-significant protective effect (B = −0.020, SE = 0.012, 95% CI = −0.044, 0.004, p = 0.098). 4.
Sex effect was only marginally non-significant ( F = 1.80, P = 0.098) and was removed from the final model, whereas year of sampling, lake, sampling method and Fulton's condition index all had significant effect in the overall model.
adding one factor at a time to the model using DLco % and CPI in severity adjustment, the survival difference in favor of current smokers was reduced to a marginally non-significant level (p=0.098 and p=0.128, respectively).
Net nitrification also responded significantly to N addition but only in the biocrusts (increasing from 1.27 to 2.12 to 2.04 μg N g -1 d -1 , respectively, Table 2 ; Supplementary Table S2 ; Figure 2B ), although the Nitrification × Depth interaction was marginally non-significant ( P = 0.098).
Also, the statistical result for the Group factor was only marginally non-significant (p = .099).
We use p value <0.05 as our criteria for a statistically significant result, however we still highlight results that are marginally non-significant (p<0.10) as potentially meaningful to understanding risk factors for violence perpetration.
The moderation analysis of time to peak HR, demonstrated a significant interaction effect of HR dynamics and frailty status on walking velocity ( p <0.01), and the interaction effect was marginally non-significant for other gait parameters ( p >0.10).
S2 Fig Piecewise-path analysis plot for all schistosome intermediate host snails with significant ( p < 0.05) pathways as black arrows, marginally non-significant ( p < 0.10) pathways as gray arrows, and standardized coefficients provided in boxes on each pathway.
25 Results from the contour-funnel precision plot is as the following: i) effect sizes are non-significant ( P > 0.1): Four trials were present in this zone that indicates that their effect sizes were not different from zero; ii) effect sizes are marginally non-significant (0.05 < P < 0.1): none of the studies fell inside this area; iii) effect sizes are different from zero (0.01 < P < 0.05): none of the trials’ effect sizes are located inside this category; iv) effect sizes are highly statistically different than zero ( P < 0.01): Five trials (55%) had highly significant effect sizes from which 4 trials (80%) indicated deficits in NFRthr in FM patients compared to healthy controls and 1 trial (20%) found positive difference in NFRthr means in FM patients and healthy individuals.
Flowering plants were influenced by management and had more species in grazed patches than in non-managed patches ( Fig 3 A ), although the difference was marginally non-significant (Tukey test, p < 0.1).
Marginally non-significant effects (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1) are reported, and p -values for post hoc tests conducted for between-subjects factors reflect results from Fisher’s LSD test.
The proportion of records occurring in winter (December, January and February) was generally higher in larger towns though the relationship was marginally non-significant (area, GLM; χ 2 = 2.66; df = 1; p = 0.10; parameter estimate ±s.e. = 0.0018±0.0011) (population size, GLM; χ 2 = 1.73; df = 1; p = 0.18; parameter estimate ±s.e. = 5.5e −7 ±4.2e −7 ).
The combined effect of the two variables, just marginally non-significant ( p < .10), is smaller in magnitude than the independent effect of deprivation, reflecting the statistical averaging of the two effects, contrary to Hypothesis 1a.
For interactions involving categorical demographic variables that reached statistical significance or were marginally non-significant (p<0.1), subgroup analyses were conducted for each category to assess between-group differences.
The main effect of insecurity was marginally non-significant ( F 1,448.33 = 2.78, p = 0.10), but there was a significant interaction between insecurity and week ( F 6,469.38 = 2.23, p = 0.04).