“marginally significant”

Compared with MAG-BERT and HyCon, BMRN has a marginally significant advantage ( p < 0.05) in Macro-F1-4 and Macro-F1-2.

Results showed a marginally significant difference overall among the three participant groups receiving the different cues associated with the TORs, F (2, 87) = 3.02, p = .05, in the NotMatched category: control ( M = 3.00, SD = 2.08), dimming ( M = 1.67, SD = 2.04), and looming ( M = 2.33, SD = 2.17).

The interaction of Robot Impression × Condition was marginally significant, B = −3.69 [−7.38, 0.006], SE = 1.86, p = .050.

Effects for the ANOVA and Welch t -tests were deemed significant at P < 0.05 and marginally significant at P = 0.05–0.10.

For the Story task, results showed a marginally significant effect of Setting on prosocial choices, F (1,30) = 4.16, p = .05, n p 2 = 0.122 ( Fig. 4 b): choices were more prosocial under the ON setting ( M = 0.576, SD = 0.174) than under the OFF setting ( M = 0.526, SD = 0.215).

In the subsequent results and discussion, we use “marginally significant” when p < 0.05 and “significant” to describe results where p < 0.01.

Pearson correlation analysis revealed a statistically significant but weak positive correlation with age ( r = 0.20, p = 0.03), and a marginally significant correlation with work experience ( r = 0.13, p = 0.05), with the emotional labour score.

The results showed that friendship quality did not play a significant role in predicting loneliness for typically developing students, students with ASD and students with motor and/or sensory disabilities, although there was a marginally significant effect of friendship quality on loneliness (−0.21, p < 0.05) for the entire group of students with SEN (special education needs).

For the 4th-grade reading analysis, the coefficient on the dummy variable for a blood lead level of 2 μg/dL is negative and marginally significant at p = 0.05.

Conversely, refractoriness or relapse to the latest prior therapy exerted significantly adverse effect on PFS and DOR (1-year PFS: 100.0% vs 41.7%, p=0.02, 1-year DOR: 100.0% vs 50%, p=0.03, figure 2A,B ), which was also revealed as the marginally significant adverse factor in terms of OS (1-year OS: 100.0% vs 65.5%, p=0.05, figure 2C ).

The number of brood had a marginally significant effect (GLMM: brood F 1,177 = 5.237; P ≤ 0.05), while population and colony phase (i.e., the presence or absence of adult offspring) had no significant effect (population F 1,175 = 0.093; P = 0.761; colony phase F 1,176 = 0.157; P = 0.692).

Proportion female/male participants In pooled analyses of all SITB outcomes measured continuously, but not dichotomously, we detected a marginally significant and weak moderating effect of proportion of female/male participants ( b = − 0.01, p = 0.05) indicating slightly stronger effects for samples with a greater number of female participants (Table 3 ).

Specifically, the indirect effect of DSO on TAW via DTS ( β = –0.043, SE = 0.023, p = .057) and on JS via resilience ( β = –0.073, SE = 0.038, p = .055) were marginally significant ( p ≥ .05) and thus do not meet the threshold for mediation.

Significance was taken as P <0.05, but marginally significant values of P = 0.05-0.10 are also mentioned.

The predicted relative abundance of bacteria with phenotypes, such as mobile genetic elements (MGE), biofilm-formation, and stress-tolerant potential, also tended to be higher in laryngeal microbiota, while the differences were marginally significant ( P = 0.05, F = 36.5).

Other ethnicities showed a marginally significant reduction (-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.00, P = 0.05).

As shown in Table 2 , the association between years of CA in high school and adult-onset asthma in middle age was marginally significant at P = 0.050 level.

A similar but marginally significant effect emerged for participants who reported access to information as easy (OR = 0.23, CI [0.05, 1.00], p = .050).

There was a marginally significant PoA × VOT interaction in medial aspects of the left AC, but only when the extent threshold was reduced to an uncorrected cluster size of p < 0.05, while keeping the peak threshold at p < 0.001.

Family location showed a marginally significant negative effect (β = −0.05, t = − 2.51, p < 0.05).

A significant or marginally significant interaction between task and background color was found for NA score [ F (1,38) = 4.25, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.10] and TDR [ F (1,36) = 3.03, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.08], indicating that the effect of background color depends on the task.

However, the coefficient for the Bmal1 −/− SCN was slightly positive and marginally significant (mean r s = 0.07±0.0336 SEM, t -test, p <0.05).

Compared to CP patients, CI patients had smaller thalami based on all methods, excepted the left thalamus volumes obtained through manual outlining ( p = 0.18) and marginally significant for left thalamus volumes from GIF ( p = 0.05).

30 , 31 Potential Joint Impact of Adherence Status and Age The marginally significant interaction between adherence status and age (F = 3.093, p = 0.050) suggests that adherence status might have varying effects on hallucination symptoms across different age groups.

Patients with an MDO had an average of 2.7 nodes positive for cancer at diagnosis compared to 2.0 for those without an MDO and this difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.05).