“marginally significant”

We also found a marginally significant effect on dogs' choices by the −213AG polymorphism [ χ ( 2 ) 2 = 5.948; p = 0.051].

However, the formative evaluation showed marginally significant association with local applicants ( p = 0.051) (c) Arab Board Written Exam ( Tables 4 and 5 ) A negative correlation was shown between being a local applicant at the time of application and passing the Arab Board part 1 (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.03–0.89; p = 0.037) and part 2 (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01–0.80; p = 0.037) written exams.

RDS at 24 hours and RDS-related mortality were significantly reduced in the lucinactant group, and there was a marginally significant reduction in overall mortality (p = 0.051) in the lucinactant group as well. 34 The only head-to-head comparison of beractant with lucinactant for the prevention of RDS suggests that lucinactant has a slight advantage in clinically important short term outcomes over beractant, including the clinical diagnosis of RDS at 24 hours and RDS-related mortality.

As Figure 7b shows, age-controlled Spearman’s correlation revealed a marginally significant correlation between greater activation and better preserved WM performance (partial ρ = 0.347, p = 0.051).

The 500–700 ms time window—The mixed-effects modelling’s fitting results showed that the main effect of the condition was marginally significant ( χ 2 (2) = 3.80, p = 0.051), and post hoc comparison suggested that the average amplitude caused by aspect violation sentences and by correct sentences was marginally significant ( β = −1.27, SE = 0.66, z = −1.94, p = 0.053).

40‐64) revealed a marginally significant negative association ( B = ‐0.320, p = 0.051), suggesting that participants aged 40‐64 were slightly less likely to anticipate AD.

Results Two participants who incorrectly responded to the target article comprehension questions were removed from analyses (the significance and direction of results do not differ if these individuals are included, with one exception: the experimental condition x timepoint interaction for the general perceived anti-White discrimination analysis was marginally significant, F (2, 224) = 3.02, p = .051, η p 2 = 0.03).

Households with two or more siblings and pets displayed marginally significant increased abundances of Penicillium (W = 38, p = 0.051, r = −0.008, CI 95% −0.014 to 0.0007) and Aureobasidium (W = 42, p = 0.087, r = −0.006, CI 95% −0.028 to 0.001), while those with no siblings and no pets exhibited lower overall fungal diversity.

Instead, differences between free pollination and forced self-pollination were marginally significant ( P = 0.051).

The case-mix index coefficient was positive and marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

For contingent elaborations, there was a marginally significant positive relationship with working memory (b = 0.33, SE = 0.17, χ 2 = 3.81, p = 0.051).

The main effect of group was significant in the IFG ( F (1, 24) = 10.653, P < 0.01), insula ( F (1, 24) = 7.154, P < 0.05), MTG ( F (1, 24) = 8.112, P < 0.01), and marginally significant in the IPL ( F (1, 24) = 4.205, P = 0.051).

Paired samples t-tests revealed that while neither the HC nor the non-responders had a significant change in amygdala activity to words of either valence following SSRI intervention (ts < 0.38, ps > 0.71, ds < 0.34), responders had a significant increase in amygdala activity to positive words (t(10) = 5.15, p < 0.001, d = 3.2) and a marginally significant decrease to negative words (t(10) = 2.19, p = 0.051, d = 0.93).

However, there was a marginally significant main effect of task [ F (1,16) = 4.46, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.218], which showed that under both action conditions, the CNV amplitude was more negative for the congruent task than for the incongruent task, suggesting that because of the age-related deficit, other cognitive processes might be involved.

Model 1a (HR ~ time + group + autoregression) fit significantly better than Model 0a (χ 2 (2) = 9.28, p = 0.010), while the difference in the goodness of fit between Model 1a and Model 2a (HR ~ time * group + autoregression) was marginally significant (χ 2 (1) = 3.81, p = 0.051).

The duration of IMV showed a marginally significant difference between groups ( p = 0.051).

In this sample, the salvinorin-induced increases in STAI mean values were marginally significant ( P =.051).

The bootstrap method indicated that the indirect relationship of fathers’ work engagement with their child’s emotional and behavioral problems was marginally significant for fathers (−0.032; 95% CI between −0.029 and −0.001, p = 0.051) and non-significant for mothers (−0.028; 95% CI between −0.027 and −0.001, p = 0.077).

Age was shown to have a marginally significant influence on the tibial meniscal SH at the medial (p = 0.051) and lateral (p = 0.09) region B and medial region C (p = 0.054).

There were marginally significant interactions among benzodiazepines, stimulus, and task during the early P3 phase (450–550 ms) for the central area ( F 2, 49 = 3.156, P = 0.051, η 2 = 0.114) and significant interactions for occipital area ( F 2, 49 = 3.347, P = 0.043, η 2 = 0.120).

There were no significant differences in CD4 + T‐cell count by treatment arm (χ 2 (3) = 1.95, p = 0.584), but there was a marginally significant group‐by‐time interaction for positive affect (χ 2 (8) = 14.03, p = 0.051).

When symptoms were further classified as alarm symptoms according to the presence of one or more specific symptoms—bleeding or anemia, weight loss, dysphagia, persistent vomiting, and rapidly progressive symptoms—there was a marginally significant difference between the two groups, with a tendency for more alarm symptoms in the case group (28.7% vs. 19.3%; P = 0.051).

There was a marginally significant interaction between height and group ( F 1,49 = 3.99, p = 0.051; η p 2 = 0.075 Fig. 3 Top panel).

There was an increase of ECC in mothers who prechewed food for their children, although the difference was marginally significant (p=0.051).

The results of the multinomial logistic regression analysis ( Table 2 ) revealed that teachers with: (1) entrepreneurship/business management experience ( p < 0.05), (2) innovation-entrepreneurship research experience ( p < 0.05), or (3) competition mentoring experience (marginally significant, p = 0.051), were 4.82, 4.72, and 4.70 times more likely, respectively, to belong to the “High IEE-competent group” (C1) than the “Moderate IEE-competent group” (C3).