“marginally significant”

For successful inflations, we found a marginally significant effect in the latency of the P2 over inflation steps, χ 2 (7) = 14.039, p = .050, while the main effect of condition was insignificant ( p = .726).

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).

The ANOVA results showed (see Table 4 ) that the main effect of exercise level was significant, F (1, 99) = 30.16, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.23; the main effect of gender was marginally significant, F (1, 99) = 3.34, p > 0.05, η 2 = 0.03; the interaction between exercise level and gender was not significant, F (1, 99) = 0.12, p > 0.05, η 2 = 0.02.

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.

This relationship was not statistically significant for supplement-taking in the second trimester (adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.8, 3.2, P = 0.2) and was marginally significant in the first trimester, although confidence intervals were wide (adjusted OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.0, 18.2, P = 0.05).

However, the same test for the infected molluscs showed a marginally significant difference for Resting time (coefficient estimation = −0.10 ± 0.05, Wald statistic 3312 = 3.81, P = 0.05) and a significant difference in the case of Stereotypic time (coefficient estimation = 0.10 ± 0.05, Wald statistic 3312 = 3.91, P = 0.04); this was considered an irregular pattern.

At 2 hours after reperfusion, EMPA pretreatment led to a significant reduction of MMP-2 and a marginally significant increase ( P = 0.05) in TIMP-1 protein levels, whereas no alterations were detected in ICAM-1 ( Figures 6E and 6G ).

The total amount of PV-immunoreactive cells was marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Figure 3 e) as was the interaction by age ( p = 0.06).

Similarly, after adjusting for the same covariates, each 1% increase in CVI corresponded to a reduction in AL elongation of 0.010 mm (95% CI, −0.019 to 0.000), although this finding was marginally significant ( P = 0.050).

Non–fellowship-trained surgeons demonstrated a marginally significant association with higher risk of aseptic loosening (2.1% vs 0.3% for fellowship-trained, P = .05).

The likelihood of good knowledge was high among the residents of Lunglei Town [OR: 2.646; marginally significant], while the residents of Phairuangkai were ~ 69% less likely to have good knowledge [OR: 0.309, p < 0.05] (Table 3 ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between culture and exposure duration, F(1,86) = 3.95, MSe = 3252.43, p = .05, η p 2 = .044.

There were significant effects of the fixed factors ‘treatment’ [F(4, 171.739) = 9.743, p < 0.001] and ‘diagnosis’ [F(1, 73.367) = 5.033, p = 0.028], and marginally significant interaction between treatment and diagnosis [F(4, 171.739) = 2.422, p = 0.05].

The effect of the 3-way interaction was marginally significant (B = −1.03, SE = 0.52, t (125) = −1.97, p = 0.05, f 2 = 3.1%; Figure 3 ).

In Americans, the unadjusted positive stress-suppression association ( r = 0.07 [−0.01, 0.16], p = .09) remained marginally significant after adjustment ( r = 0.09 [−0.25, −0.05], p = .05).

3.3 Perceived competence and peer acceptance The ANOVA for perceived general competence was marginally significant ( F (1, 23) = 4.01, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.15).

Residence was marginally significant (χ 2 = 3.836, p = 0.050), with rural residents showing slightly higher adherence (84.2%) than urban ones (81.6%).

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 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).

Primary outcome At Week 7, LM/S did not demonstrate significant improvement compared to CAU in depressive symptoms (adjusted mean difference = − 1.21, p =.80, d = 0.24), while the PLM showed a marginally significant reduction relative to CAU (adjusted mean difference = − 3.96, p =.05, d = 0.78).

Nevertheless, hoarseness was found to be marginally significant in cases with hypopharynx involvement ( P =0.05).

While considering the changes in tremor severity for both left and right hands (by taking the average change in tremor severity) for a given tremor phase combination derived from instantaneous tremor phases from both hands, both patients showed multiple phase combinations that provided marginally significant effects on bilateral tremor severity (Fig. 2E,I , blue stars, P < 0.05 against surrogate distribution, although none of them survived multiple comparison corrections).

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant between P > 0.05 and P ≤ 0.10.

Linear models showed a marginally significant positive association between leopard fGCM and habitat NDVI values ( t value = 2.003, F (1, 201) = 4.01, P = 0.05) (Supplementary Material, Fig.

After mental fatigue inducement, in the theta band, the interaction effect on average path length was significant ( F (3,56) = 3.239, p = 0.029, η p 2 = 0.148) and decreased significantly in the 15 Hz binaural beats group ( p < 0.05); the interaction effect on nodal efficiency was marginally significant ( F (3,56) = 2.568, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.121) and the 15 Hz binaural beats group showed an increasing trend ( p < 0.05).