“marginally significant”

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).

Additionally, a marginally significant interaction effect between agent number and risk-taking behaviour was observed, F 2,192 = 2.993, p = 0.050, η 2 = 0.030.

As regards news sharing intentions, evidence only partially supports HMP theory: people with stronger conservative leanings reported a higher (marginally significant) willingness to share news from Fox News rather than CNN when the news concerns COVID-19 complying behaviours ( β = 0.11, s.e. = 0.05, p < 0.05; table 8 and figure 4 d ).

Animal protein intake was related to lower BMI when substituted for plant protein in analyses excluding underweight participants, but this association was marginally significant ( β per 1 % energy increment –0·11; 95 % CI: –0·23, 0·00; P = 0·05; P trend across Q1–Q4 = 0·04).

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

During preparation, a very small, but significant, activity increase was found within PMv ( p = 0.002), and a marginally significant increase within PMd ( p = 0.050; Fig. 4 b ), suggesting large variability across participants.

When they investigated the risk factors they found a statistically marginally significant increased risk (p = 0.05) of females having these glaucomas.

Adding best corrected visual acuity (measured in logMAR (negative decadic logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution)) to the model showed a marginally significant association with self-rated depression scores ( P = 0.05; beta: 0.04; B: 1.56; 95%CI: -0.01, 3.13).

Noteworthy, the difference was marginally significant between pre- and post-NHRP periods ( P = 0.05).

These analyses revealed a marginally significant main effect of critical IOI on guessing rate (F(2,36) = 3.26, p = 0.0501, ƞ p 2 = 0.15); guessing rate was lower with longer critical IOIs ( Fig 3 ).

At posttest, the difference between the intervention and control groups is marginally significant ( p = 0.0501).

In the validation dataset, the high moderate- and high-risk groups showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.0501).

For wPLI, changes remained significant or marginally significant at 4 h ( p = 0.0502), 12 h ( p = 0.027), and 1 day ( p = 0.027) in the broadband range and at 1 day in the theta band ( p = 0.002) compared to the baseline.

The ANCOVA reveals only a marginally significant main effect of Interaction Partner, F(2,104) = 3.082, p = 0.0502, no main effect of Toddler Gender, F(1,102) = 0.007, p = 0.931, and no significant interaction, F(2,104) = 1.22, p = 0.298.

Our analysis showed that for disease-free survival, low VHL level was marginally significant on univariate analysis ( P = 0.0502, Fig. 1 ).

schmidlii , we found 18 infected females and 5 infected males, which shows a marginally significant trend in the infection between the sexes (6.7 and 2.5%, respectively; Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.0502).

The interaction was significant at position 2, b = −0.61220, SE = 0.26911, z = −2.275, p = .0229, and position 4, b = −0.70490, SE = 0.24750, z = −2.848, p < .01, and marginally significant at position 1, b = −0.46395, SE = 0.23688, z = −1.959, p = .0502.

The decrease in TEER was marginally significant ( P = 0.0502) compared to the control.

This difference was not significant (Wilcoxon, p = .1305), but it became marginally significant by removing the outlier (t-test p = .0502) ( Table 4 ).

In the apical turn, density at day 28 is significantly lower from day 10 (significant effect of day in a parametric model, p = 0.0120; pairwise comparison on least squares means for the effect of day with Tukey adjustment, p = 0.0148) The difference between day 10 and day 56 in apical neuron density was marginally significant ( p = 0.0503), but the difference between day 28 and day 56 was non-significant ( p = 0.96).

There was no significant difference between the groups, except that there were more female lambs in the DUV 0.02 mg/kg dose group, and this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.0503).

Lower, marginally significant among-group variation was observed between New Mexico and the Midwest region within the native range (22% , P = 0.0503).

A One-Way ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of the three conditions in the total disruption duration [ F (2, 28) = 3.33, p = 0.0504, p rep = 0.92, η 2 p = 0.19].

As shown in Figure 4B , increased cytoplasmic or membranous IGF1R-alpha protein expression, was associated with an absolute 47.5% increase in the risk of death after adjustment for all other clinicopathological parameters and this result was marginally significant (HR = 1.475, 95%CI: 1.000–2.178, p = 0.0504).