“marginally significant”

Feculent ascites was a marginally significant factor (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).

Linear regression analysis revealed a significant effect of midazolam on BIS at LoR ( p < 0.001) and a marginally significant effect of the model used ( p = 0.051), with no significant interaction between these factors ( p = 0.16).

In a Cox proportional regression model, PS, intensity of treatment and p27 retained statistical significance (HR = 2.363, 95% CI = 0.999–5.589, p = 0.050; HR = 2.550, 95% CI = 1.105–5.886, p = 0.028; HR = 3.743, 95% CI =1.064–13.169, p = 0.040, respectively) while cyclin D1 was marginally significant (HR = 1.070, 95% CI = 1.000–1.145, p = 0.051).

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 ).

For the P400, we observed a marginally significant interaction between FaceGender and Emotion ( F (1,29) = 4.16, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.13; see Figure 3 ) between 300 and 500 ms as defined a priori.

Hopelessness was marginally significant for females (B = 0.042, SE = 0.021, p = 0.051) and non-significant for males (B = 0.029, SE = 0.021, p = 0.166).

Lifetime anxiety was associated with higher odds of the outcome (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.24–1.58, p < 0.001), and lifetime depression was marginally significant (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00–1.27, p = 0.051).

The interaction between cognitive task and AGE was marginally significant ( F (1, 26) = 4.19, p = 0.051).

Conscientiousness showed a marginally significant negative correlation with NA ( r = −0.231, p = 0.051), while extraversion and agreeableness were not significantly related to overall NA ( p > 0.05).

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

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

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

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).

Interestingly, the thumb representation presented a main effect of CONTEXT (marginally significant: F 1,18 = 4.34, p = 0.051, partial η 2 = 0.194), while this effect was not significant for the pinky representation (F 1,18 = 1.82, p = 0.194, partial η 2 = 0.089).

Specifically, across the 60 associated coefficients, only one was significant: employment tenure had a small and marginally significant effect on motivating others ( b = –0.01, p = 0.051).

These findings also drove a marginally significant increase in total percent commission errors ( t = 2.027; P = 0.051).

Locality and vegetative period did not affect the average survival probability on the other development stages, although a marginally significant trend of period affecting L3-to-pupae transition was observed ( F 1,3 = 9.84, p = 0.051, Figure 3 ).

Accordingly, a marginally significant three-way interaction between Group (“small” vs. “large”), Coherence (5% vs. 10%) and Direction (0° vs. ±60°) was obtained, F (1, 26) = 4.19, p = 0.051, η P 2 = 0.14.

In ANOVA model II, the leisure activity participation rate showed a marginally significant sex × condition interaction ( F 1,71 = 3.95, P = 0.051).

In the first time-window compatible with the P1 time range and scalp distribution (112–152 ms), the Control group presented a marginally significant positive cluster of electrodes ( p = 0.051; cluster size = 203; cluster statistic = 604), showing a trend toward a larger amplitude in response to faces as compared to animals.

The marginally significant correlation between charitable donations and logo fixation duration ( r s = 0.201, p = 0.051) hints that experienced donors may engage slightly more with organisational branding, warranting investigation with larger samples.

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 ).

Similarly, an analysis performed on Chl indicates that CE are associated with a significant albeit modest Chl increase by 3.2% on average ( p -value = 2E −3 ), while the average Chl anomalies within AE are marginally significant ( p -value = 0.051) (Fig. 2B ).

An additional three-way linear mixed-effects analysis revealed significant interaction effects of group × FNC × time for the connection between the left DMN-C and DAN-B ( P = 0.028), along with a marginally significant group × time interaction ( P = 0.051).