“marginally significant”

Plant height had a marginally significant positive effect, with taller plants tending to cause more secondary extinctions (estimate ± SE = 0.405 ± 0.209, p = 0.05; Table S4 ).

There was a marginally significant genotype-by-diagnosis interaction (F 2,110 = 3.08, p = 0.050), which appeared to be driven by CUD patients with homozygous CC, who had shorter latencies on unsuccessful Stop trials compared with healthy control participans of the same genotype (F 1,103 = 3.703, p = 0.057).

Some of the strongest negative correlations with SWRs were observed in RE (unit in Figure 3b ), and the size of the effect was marginally significant in RE compared to non-RE units (p=0.05).

The difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Table 3 ). 2.3.

Among violent offenders only, sedatives tended to be associated with fatal violence ( p =0.06), whereas amphetamine, homelessness, age, and (marginally significant, p =0.05) heroin were negatively associated with fatal violence, as opposed to non-fatal violence.

Congruency was marginally significant on the P200 amplitude [ F (1, 15) = 4.56, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.233], where incongruent conditions showed an enhanced positivity (Figure 3A ).

Analysis revealed a three-way interaction that was marginally significant ( F (1,17) = 4.31, P = 0.05, η P 2 = 0.20).

We observed a significant effect of meaning modulation [ F 1(2, 167) = 12.23, p < 0.001; F 2(2, 327) = 24.97, p < 0.001], as well as a significant effect of set type in the by item analysis and marginally significant in the by subject analysis [ F 1(2, 167) = 2.95, p = 0.05; F 2(2, 327) = 9.46, p < 0.001].

On the other hand, the interocular differences for the BF_0.3 condition were significantly higher than the other filter conditions for the OSI ( p < 0.001), being marginally significant when compared to BF_0.4 (for MTF cut‐off, F 1 , 6 = 5.93, p = 0.05 and for OSI, F 1 , 6 = 5.78, p = 0.05).

The meta-analyses revealed that esketamine was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of nausea (RR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50–0.94; p = 0.02; I 2 = 75%) and a marginally significant reduction in vomiting (RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.51–1.00; p = 0.05; I 2 = 71%).

We found no main effect of participant condition (χ 2 (1) = 2.5, P = 0.11), a marginally significant effect of other condition (χ 2 (1) = 3.7, P = 0.05) and, crucially, a significant interaction between participant condition and other condition (χ 2 (3) = 9.7, P = 0.001).

However, a marginally significant association (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00-1.55, p = 0.05) was found with the urinary concentration of DMAs III .

A pooled analysis revealed that the association with hand hygiene was statistically significant for pros (OR = 1.35, p < .001), while marginally significant for cons (OR = 0.87, p = .05; Table 2 ).

When examining looking durations as dichotomous variables, we observed a significant effect of age on total looking, β = –.44, p = .03, and a marginally significant effect of age on maximum look duration, β = –.41, p = .05.

In addition, trust in people had a marginally significant effect on social empathy ( β = 0.100, p ≤ 0.05), and had a significant effect on subjective well-being ( β = 0.223, p < 0.001).

Changes in Depressive Symptoms The ANOVA testing for changes in depressive symptoms demonstrated a marginally significant main effect of time-by-group interaction (F(1, 79) = 3.82, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.05), indicating a marginally significant difference between the groups post-intervention.

Retest), Frequency, and Group was marginally significant [ F (30,375)=1.49; p =.05].

We also detected a marginally significant variability within F1 mothers in time between broods ( P = 0.05; Table 2 , Figs. 2 , S1).

We found that father–child discrepancies in perceived paternal responsiveness and demandingness, and mother–child discrepancy in perceived maternal control were associated negatively with achievement motivation of economically disadvantaged adolescents, with Pearson’s r of −.18 ( p < .006, two-tailed multistage Bonferroni procedure was carried out), −.12 ( p < .05, marginally significant), −.18 ( p < .006), respectively, indicating small to medium effect size.

Levels of sPD-1, sPD-L1, sLAG-3, sICOS, sGITR and sCD86 were significantly higher in mismatch repair deficient tumors (p<0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) and difference in sGITRL was marginally significant (p=0.050, Mann-Whitney U test).

The relationship was significant when considering the risk of cholera in only placebo recipients (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98; P < 0.0001), and was of marginally significant in a model that considered the risk only in vaccinees (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-1.00; P = 0.05).

19 , 20 , 22 – 24 , 28 , 29 , 32 The pooled results indicated a marginally significant reduction in CSM risk among BB users (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81–1.00; Z = 1.95; P = 0.05).

On the other hand, for groups 1 and 3, there was marginally significant difference in the mean genotype concordance rate among different multiplexing levels ( P = 0.050), and significant correlation could be identified between mean genotype concordance rate and multiplexing level (coefficient = 0.155, P = 0.041; footnote b, Table 2 ).

The interaction between treatment type and time was marginally significant ( F =3.29, P =0.05).

Attitude (H6) had a positive and marginally significant effect (β = 0.101, t = 1.963, p < 0.05), indicating that favorable evaluations of forest policy contribute to higher support intentions.