“marginally significant”

We did observe a marginally significant interaction between Consistency and Seeing, F (2, 32) = 3.30, p = .05, η p 2 = .171.

Our results also show a marginally significant difference between High SA individuals and Low SA individuals in the Non-Cooperative condition, p = .050, 95% CI [−36.31, −0.005], with high SA individuals rating their offers as less fair.

The effect of marriage was marginally significant, F (1, 55) = 3.91, p = .05, partial η 2 = .07.

Activity was found to be a marginally significant risk factor ( P = 0.05).

This difference in frequency was marginally significant ( P = 0.05, Chi square test).

The results revealed a significant two‐way interaction effect on the problem‐solving related math anxiety subscale (ATS F = 11.54, df = 1, p < .001) and a marginally significant interaction on the school setting‐related math anxiety subscale (ATS F = 3.84, df = 1, p = .050).

A marginally significant negative correlation was also observed between HIL and pterygium thickness ( r = −0.178, P = 0.050) in this cohort (Table 5 ).

Finding about neonatal weight showed that those in the top quartile of adherence to western dietary pattern had marginally significant chance of having low weight infant compared with those in the bottom quartile in the crude model [OR 1.84, 95% (CI) (0.94-3.60), P = 0.05].

Among the top 2% of genes with consistently higher white expression than purple, there were 18 significant terms ( P <0.01) and 42 marginally significant terms ( P <0.05) exhibiting enrichment.

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.

S6 Dataset A list of 497 genes that showed marginally significant difference in viral induced gene expression changes between asthmatic between non-asthmatic ALI samples (nominal p <0.05).

Additionally, a marginally significant 2-way interaction effect between family resilience and caregiver needs was also observed ( b = −0.01, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.001]).

Current income status also showed a marginally significant negative relationship (B =-1.448, p = .050).

The intervention period of less than 6 weeks improved the response time to a certain extent, showing a marginally significant effect (SMD = −0.68, p = 0.05), while the intervention period exceeding 6 weeks did not make the response time reach statistical significance (SMD = −1.03, p > 0.07).

Interestingly, there was a marginally significant difference on the measure of environmental health t (76) = −2.041, p = .05.

Additionally, a marginally significant association was observed after adjusting for the stenosis degree and time interval between HR-MRI and stroke (β=0.190, 95% CI [−0.002, 0.337], P =0.05) ( Table 2 ).

Horizontal pleiotropy assessed by MR-Egger intercepts was minimal for NAFLD (intercept = 0.026, P = 0.059), chronic HBV (intercept = 0.020, P = 0.490), and viral hepatitis (intercept = 0.004, P = 0.868), whereas primary biliary cholangitis exhibited a marginally significant pleiotropy signal (intercept = −0.088; P < 0.05).

Increased connectivity in the DMN in gamma 2 (65–80 Hz) at 6 years was related to worse performance on working memory tasks at 8 years, but correlations were marginally significant for backward digit recall (rho = −0.31, P = 0.05) and block recall (rho = −0.27, P = 0.08).

The difference between switch and non-switch trials was marginally significant in the passive control group, F (1,56) = 4.02, p = 0.050, ƞ p 2 = 0.067 and non-significant in the active control group, F (1,56) < 1.

A marginally significant effect of compliance was recorded on FMBS ( p = 0.05).

The interaction effect between the pre-post assignment and nationality is marginally significant (F = 4.25, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.15), while the three-way interaction involving pre-post assignment, individualism-collectivism orientation, and nationality is also marginally significant (F = 1.80, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.06).

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.10 ≥ P > 0.05 for the main effects of increasing the SID Trp:Lys in 40% DDGS diets and the overall impact of diet.

However, we found that only one (of eight) species had significantly different larval and adult communities ( p = 0.04, R 2 = 0.53, 5% abundance cut-off, electronic supplementary material, table S1A), and two other species showed marginally significant differences ( p = 0.05, R 2 = 0.22 and p = 0.07, R 2 = 0.28; 5% abundance cut-off , electronic supplementary material, table S1A; results were similar when considering top 5 OTUs).

Hypothesis testing As predicted, ANOVA analysis (scarcity appeal × need for uniqueness) with purchase intention as the dependent variable indicated that the interaction between the two independent variables was marginally significant ( F (1, 122) = 8.32, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.064).

This difference remained marginally significant after adjusting for all covariates ( p = 0.05).