“marginally significant”

When considering the sexes separately, only body weight and body mass/body length were significantly correlated with latitude in females ( S1 Table ; p = 0.004, p = 0.004, respectively), but correlations in males were marginally significant ( p = 0.051, p = 0.054, respectively) and trends were clinal for all traits in both sexes.

This relationship was marginally significant, F (3, 449) = 2.61, p = .051.

Other findings are similar to model 2 except that the adjusted odds ratio for the birth order ‘2–4’ was marginally significant at the conventional 5% level ( p = 0.051).

The difference between these two time delays was marginally significant (t 15 = 2.12, p = 0.051).

In the current study, concurrent chemotherapy had a marginally significant ( p = 0.051) effect in the univariate analysis.

The interaction between session and sleep stage was found to be marginally significant (Wald chi-square (2, 73) = 6.0, p = .051).

( online supplementary table 1 ; marginally significant (p=0.051) for marriage status).

A main effect of congruency was found, F (1,57) = 102.6, MSE = 64,955, p < 0.001, a marginally significant effect was found for group, F (2,57) = 2.64, MSE = 37,202, p = 0.051, and no significant interaction effect was found, F < 1.

This effect was also marginally significant in the OCD group compared to controls: increased probabilistic switching ( t (23) = − 2.054, p = 0.051).

Makin and Wuerger also observed a marginally significant difference in their IAT 3 for this color-shape combination; D scores were marginally shifted to the right ( p = 0.051, mean D score = 0.13) and RTs in the congruent conditions (575 ms) were faster than in the incongruent conditions (621 ms) [ 11 ].

3.2 Visual search results 3.2.1 The number of fixations A main effect of “Stimulus” was found on the number of fixations [ F (1, 89) = 106.903, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.55], and also, there was a marginally significant main effect of “Group” [ F (1, 89) = 3.079, p = .051, η p 2 = 0.06].

A 2 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA with the factors target type (no-onset, onset) and number of onsets (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 items) revealed a marginally significant main effect for target type, F (1, 11) = 4.78, p = 0.051, due to the somewhat higher error rate with no-onset targets than with onset targets (3.7 vs. 2.7%, respectively).

The main effect of participant gender was marginally significant [ F (1,282) = 3.83, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.01], with men [ M = 8.96, SE = 0.20] showing wider CoDG width than women [ M = 8.41, SE = 0.20].

There was, however, a marginally significant interaction between listening span scores and drug (F(1,99) = 3.912, p = 0.051).

The instruction × workload interaction was marginally significant, F (1,50) = 4.014, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.009.

A marginally significant effect of Aramchol 600 mg was shown in terms of NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (16.7% versus 5% in placebo, p = 0.051 OR 4.74, 95% CI 0.99–22.7), while a significant effect on fibrosis improvement without worsening of NASH was not observed.

The difference in the AUC values of the ITT was marginally significant ( p = 0.051) between the HFD groups (control vs. cilostazol-treated) ( Figure 1 e). 3.2.

Although the main effect of condition was marginally significant ( F 4,99 = 2.45, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.09 ), a post hoc Bonferroni corrected t -test did not reveal any significant difference between each condition (all p s > 0.05).

Specific phobia showed a marginally significant effect for Time ( F (1, 22.67) = 4.24, p = 0.051), with a significant Time by Group interaction ( F (1, 22.67) = 5.77, p = 0.025).

Results of a general linear mixed effects analysis with the dependent variable ‘Accuracy’ and the predictor variable ‘Condition’ showed a marginally significant effect of the predictor Condition [ X 2 (7) = 14.022, p = 0.051].

Silver fir profited from high maximum temperatures, as the effect was marginally significant with a 1°C increase in positive maximum temperatures reducing the hazard of death by 36.4% ( p = 0.051).

After adjusting for covariates, the CSS benefit of ovarian conservation was marginally significant ( P = 0.051), and the OS benefit was still significant ( P = 0.006).

The analysis revealed significant main effects of face age, F (1,34) = 6.36, p <.05, η 2 = .158, and orientation, F (1,34) = 46.71, p <.001, η 2 = .579, which were both qualified by a marginally significant Face Age × Orientation interaction, F (1,34) = 4.07, p = .051, η 2 = .107.

These variables included the following: waking at night and having trouble falling back to sleep ( p = 0.018); waking unrefreshed or tired in the morning ( p = 0.036); and the marginally significant variable of difficulty concentrating during the day ( p = 0.051).

When we did that, for SVO the pooled analysis showed an overall effect (β = 0.069, t = 1.53, p = .013), which means the effect of the target (compared to baseline) is consistent in this condition; for S ba OV the difference between the target condition and the baseline was not statistically significant (β = 0.011, t = 0.27, p = .079); the pooled results showed a marginally significant difference between the target condition and the baseline in O, S ba OV condition (β = 0.021, t = 0.67, p = .051).).