“marginally significant”

The marginally significant interaction effect between education and severity, β = 0.57, t (1171) = 1.95, p = 0.05, was also tested.

A one-tailed paired t-test comparing DBS-ON and DBS-OFF conditions showed a marginally significant difference (t = 2.04, df = 5, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.27]; Fig. 3F ), suggesting a possible, though limited, reinforcing effect.

Adding disability did not significantly add to the prediction of perspectives on DL ( F (2, 338) = 1.88, ns), whereas entering self-image accounted for an additional marginally significant 1.8% of the variance in students’ perspectives on DL ( F (3, 337) = 3.11, p = 0.05, F -change = 5.53, p < 0.05).

For the two studies the relation was positive and statistically significant and for the third was positive and marginally significant (P=0.05).

In objective conditions, we found a marginally significant main effect of marker ( β = −1.31, SE = 0.01, t = 1.45, p = 0.05, CI.lower = −2.60, CI.higher = −0.02).

Risk perception was negatively correlated with age at sexual debut, r (64) = −0.26, p = 0.037; one-way ANOVA showed a marginally significant association between risk perception and number of sexual partners, F (4, 60) = 2.48, p = 0.05.

Respondents that consumed fresh fruits at least once weekly had a higher level of mean total knowledge score, though this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.05, Table 6 ).

3 A) as compared to controls for bradykinesia hallmarks (PD versus control: T = 2.77, P = 0.003; PDb versus control: T = 2.68, P = 0.005) and rigidity hallmarks (PD versus control: T = 1.8, P = 0.037; PDb versus control: T = 2.34, P = 0.012). PAC abnormalities were also found for PD versus control ( T = 1.81, P = 0.036) and marginally significant in PDb ( T = 1, P = 0.05).

Marginally significant difference was noted in HbA1c (7.2 vs 6.8%, p = 0.05).

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 ).

The corresponding correlation for the dorsal ROI was small ( r =−0.01) and the difference with the sgACC correlation was marginally significant ( t =−2.01, p =0.05) suggesting that the successful treatment response corresponds with a relative shift in caudate connectivity with ventral (sgACC) as compared with dorsal (dmPFC) regions.

In patients with svPPA, there was a significant effect of atrophy within the SN principal gradient ( p < 0.001) and marginally significant effects within the limbic and visual networks ( p = 0.05).

ngagement Strategies pathway (β = 0.224, p < 0.001); Hypothesis H5 demonstrated robust support, revealing the strongest direct effect where Psychological Resilience significantly enhanced Cognitive Engagement Strategies (β = 0.366, p < 0.001); Finally, Hypothesis H6 was partially supported, showing marginally significant positive influence of Psychological Resilience on Academic Motivation (β = 0.149, p < 0.05).

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

In this analysis of advanced echocardiographic variables, only GWE exhibited a marginally significant difference between the two groups of heart transplant recipients ( p = 0.05), being higher in the OHT < 4 group compared to those with OHT ≥ 4.

Marginally significant differences were found between younger participants and middle age groups [two-sample t-test, t (128) = 1.94, p = 0.05] [Fig. 4(B) ]; while no significant difference were observed between young and old groups [ t (58) = 1.51, p = 0.13] and middle and older age groups [ t (88) = 0.50, p = 0.62].

The χ 2 ( Table 3 ) was not statistically significant in the final measurement model for adoptive mothers but was marginally significant in the final measurement model for adoptive fathers ( p < 0.05).

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.

4 b), with a marginally significant interaction term (site*SVL F 2,327 = 3.12, P = 0.05; litter sizes increased less rapidly with maternal SVL at Baie des Citrons south than at the other sites).

For this study, statistical significance was indicated by p ‐values <0.05, and marginally significant results have p ‐values >0.05 but <0.10.

In comparison between ICD users and pacemaker users in terms of the SF-36 general health survey, a marginally significant difference was noted in the role of limitations due to emotional health (63 ± 28.6) for ICD patients compared to pacemaker patients (81.8 ± 28.1), (p=0.050).

There were no significant group differences, although the PAD group showed a marginally significant poorer performance on Digit Symbol ( p = .05).

Regarding the self-report measures, we observed a marginally significant interaction Condition x Group, F(2) = 3.053, p = .05, partial ƞ 2 = .041, suggesting that, in both groups, the self-reported arousal was always higher in the fear condition compared with the neutral condition, as well as in the happy condition compared with the neutral condition, p < .01.

The difference is marginally significant: p < 0.05, two-tailed.

While one test showed a marginally significant result (whole-cord between-hemicord dorsal-ventral correlation: p = 0.05), this was far from significance when considering correction for multiple comparisons (p = 0.33).