“marginally significant”

Comparison of plasma cortisol concentrations between months showed marginally significant differences (F (3,43) = 2.809; p = 0.051) between the first and last months of the hunting season ( Figure 1 a).

A paired samples t -test showed that there was a marginally significant difference ( t = -2.024, df = 35, p = 0.051) in the difference in pitch range (Tones 4 – 1) between IDS (mean = 97.724 Hz, sd = 75.934) and ADS (mean = 66.987 Hz, sd = 60.927).

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).

After 12 months, the reduction in score was still higher in the HHR group ( Table 2 ) although the difference was marginally significant in this case (p=0.051).

This again resulted in a significant difference between ascending and central presentation direction (β = −.18 [−.32, −.04], t = −2.47, p = .014), and a marginally significant difference between central and descending presentation direction (β = .14 [.00, .28], t = 1.95, p = .051) and a significant effect for sentence spatial location values (β = .31 [.16, .46], t = 4.16, p < .001).

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).

Furthermore, having had ≥2 casual male partners had a marginally significant association with HIV seroconversion (aHR = 2.9, 95%CI = 1.0–8.4, p = 0.051).

Descriptives The prevalence of AjD was 25.6% ( n = 81), with a marginally significant higher proportion of women (30.7%) being diagnosed than men (21.1%; χ 2 (1) = 3.80, p = .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).).

Post-hoc Dunn tests with Bonferroni correction indicate a marginally significant difference between M-BPD and M-HC ( Z = − 2.39, p =.051, d BPD−HC = 0.30) in the direction of greater negativity in child references among M-BPD ( M = 0.03, SD = 0.06) compared to M-HC ( M = 0.01, SD = 0.04).

In contrast to 30 mg QD dacomitinib and 80 mg QD osimertinib, we observed a marginally significant improvement after 1 year of treatment ( P = 0.051) after multiple comparison corrections.

ANOVA of the number of anticipatory responses indicated significant main effects for block (F(1, 245) = 35.84, MSE = 1.11, p < .001, η 2 p = .128) and exposure (F(1.85, 453.86) = 39.21, MSE = 2.84 (Greenhouse–Geisser correction for deviation from sphericity), p < .001, η 2 p = .138) as well as a marginally significant main effect of UHR status (F(1, 245) = 3.84, MSE = 5.70, p = .051, η 2 p = .015).

Per protocol (PP) analysis Results from 3 × 4 mixed ANOVA revealed significant treatment-by-time interaction effects for all variables analysed, with the exception of behaviour activation, which nevertheless reached a marginally significant level ( p = 0.051) ( Table 8 ).

The PERMANOVA and PCA results, incorporating all floral traits, showed marginally significant differentiation between the insular and mainland populations of P. japonica (Bonferroni-corrected pairwise PERMANOVAs: F -value = 5.9, R 2 = 0.13, P = 0.051; Supplementary Table S7 ).

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

The main effect of time since miscarriage was marginally significant ( F (3, 237) = 2.63, p = .051) while the interaction between time since miscarriage and childlessness ( F (3, 237) = 2.22, p = .087) was not.

Within a constrained range (scaled V 3 < 0.8), time pressure exhibited a marginally significant interaction with contextual variance ( β = 0.46, s.e. = 0.23, t = 1.95, p = 0.051, standardized coefficient = 0.08, 95% C.I. = [0, .15]) — a pattern consistent with the model prediction of a flatter early noise effect under high time pressure due to early-late noise tradeoff.

CRBSI was more frequently observed in women than men, and this difference was marginally significant (cumulative incidence at 30 days: 7.9% vs. 0%; p=0.051) ( Table 2 ).

stercorarius was set as the foreground branch, only a single codon in the nad5 gene showed a marginally significant signal ( p = 0.051; Table S6 ).

Taken alone, this correlation was marginally significant (P = 0.051), but was non-signficant following Benjamini-Hochberg adjustments for multiple testing (P = 0.322).

There was also a marginally significant three-way interaction between task type, F1, and F2 (b = −0.07, p < 0.051).

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

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).

Two way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of age ( F (1,8) = 8.322, p = 0.02) and a marginally significant age by treatment interaction ( F (1,8) = 5.283, p = 0.051).

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