“marginally significant”

Similar to base model 2, adding adiponectin to base model 3 did not improve AUC, but resulted in small yet marginally significant NRI (0.12, P = 0.051) and IDI (0.01, P < 0.05).

We found a marginally significant main effect of gossip, F (1, 15.454) = 4.460, p = 0.051, with more contribution in each round when participants could gossip ( M = 7.444, SE = 0.357), compared to unable to gossip ( M = 6.378, SE = 0.357).

Age stratification revealed younger-old (65–75) achieved 24% improvement (d = 1.38), middle-old (76–85) achieved 19% improvement (d = 1.12), and oldest-old (86+) achieved 14% improvement (d = 0.89), with age-by-time interaction marginally significant (F(2,297) = 3.02, p = 0.051) suggesting slightly attenuated but still substantial effects in oldest users.

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).

As for the balanced trials, group effect was marginally significant, F (1,38) = 4.07, p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.09 and math anxiety did not interact with number of digits ( p = 0.75).

Within the HFD-fed cohort, there was significant main effects of sex [ F (1, 18) = 4.463, p = 0.049], hypothalamic region [ F (1, 18) = 23.339, p < 0.001], and a marginally significant sex × hypothalamic region interaction [ F (1, 18) = 4.359, p = 0.051].

There were marginally significant differences in sample variance within colonies (betadisper: F = 1.38, p = 0.051), but PERMANOVA is robust to differences in variance when designs are well balanced (Anderson & Walsh, 2013 ).

3 ); this difference was marginally significant (p=0.051).

Secondary analyses There was evidence for a marginally significant (P=0.051) treatment effect in favour of the plate group for the DASH score at 12 months only, although the effect size was small −3.2 (95% confidence interval −6.5 to 0.0).

A marginally significant difference was found between delay conditions for temporal clustering (t(86) = -1.98, Cohen’s d = -0.21, p = .051, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.00], BF 01 = 1.31).

Similarly, BAK and BAK + ELN decreased IL-8, although this effect was marginally significant ( P = 0.051, one-tailed two-sample t -test for CTL vs.

While a marginally significant difference in phonological fluency was found pre-training between the dyslexic and control groups [ t (19) = 2.08, p = 0.051], no such difference was found following the training.

And the trend was marginally significant ( p =0.051).

With respect to gender differences, only a marginally significant effect was observed for Emotional clarity ( t (171) = 1.97, p = 0.051, d = 0.30).

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).

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.

Although the overall effect of transfusion timing was marginally significant (p=0.051), its nonlinear component reached statistical significance (p=0.033), indicating a potential critical risk window.

Spatial memory performance A MANOVA revealed a marginally significant difference between MCI and control participants for Landmark Recognition, F (1, 32) = 4.102, MSE = 10.07, p = .051.

The interaction between CAD subtype and the RAR for MACEs was marginally significant ( p = 0.051; Fig. 7 ).

And also showed a marginally significant ( p = 0.051) effect on learning.

The gender effect was marginally significant, F(1,53) = 4.0, p = 0.051, but qualified by the two-way interaction of Group × Gender, F(1,53) = 4.467, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.14.

In addition, the main effect of diagnosis was marginally significant ( F (1,31) = 4.11, p = .051, partial η 2 = .117).

A multivariable model with the above predictor variables revealed that “risky behavior” was significantly associated with NTS positive stool (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 0.67–2.90%, p = 0.004) and eastern region, marginally significant (OR = 1.21 95% CI: 0.62–1.95, p = 0.051) ( Supplementary Table 3 ).

May showed a marginally significant decrease in species count (Estimate = − 0.6145, p = 0.051).

The difference between CSR scores at post-treatment and follow-up was marginally significant at p = 0.051.