“marginally significant”

Wean age tended to decrease 305-d milk yield (Estimate = −22.31, SEM = 11.46, P = 0.051, marginally significant), accounting for 0.04% of the variance ( Table 6 ).

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).

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).

There was a marginally significant association between OH/ECW and SBP (r = 0.171; P = 0.051).

Other effects were not significant, except for the interaction of Gender-by-Group being marginally significant, Wald-χ2(1) = 3.81, p = 0.051.

The interaction of ROI with reward was marginally significant ( F (2.55,66.25) = 2.880, P = 0.051).

PRS was shorter in the LI group regardless of the recurrence risk, although the p -values were marginally significant (LR, 34.04 ± 25.12 vs. 41.62 ± 21.95, p = 0.051; HR, 26.50 ± 22.48 vs. 32.42 ± 22.64, p = 0.033).

The effect of condition was marginally significant, F (2, 18) = 3.523, P = 0.051.

The same ANOVA performed on the Effector Priming Task revealed a marginally significant effect of Age Group F (1,83) = 3.9, P = 0.051) but the main effect of Prime Group and the Prime x Age Group interaction was not significant (both F (1,83) < 1).

We also observed an association of p53 expression with a grade of inflammation that was marginally significant (p = 0.051).

At follow-up, such correlation remained significant for HAPA-enhanced ( r =.59, P <.001) and basic mindfulness groups ( r =.43, P <.001) and became marginally significant for waitlist controls ( r =.28, P =.051).

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.

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 ).

The interaction between probe type and stimulus novelty condition was marginally significant, F (1, 63) = 3.94, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.06, resulting from a greater PI effect in the repeated ( M = 0.07) than unique ( M = 0.03) condition.

The interaction between Round and Policy was marginally significant F (1, 94) = 3.91, p = 0.051, partial η 2 = 0.04 indicating that in general participants tended to inflate performance more in the one-by-one condition than in the all-at-once condition.

For root dry biomass, both water availability and rice variety were significant sources of variation, whereas the mycorrhiza × variety interaction was marginally significant ( P = 0.051; Supplementary table 4 ).

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).

Interaction analysis shows that the interaction term BMI × sex was marginally significant (OR = 1.927 [95% CI, 0.996–3.726], p = 0.051, Table 3 , Model 4a).

Based on Wald‐type tests of each term, the air temperature had a significant relationship with the EFs ( p = .0061), the soil pH effect was marginally significant ( p = .0510) and there were no significant differences between urine types ( p = .1661).

In addition, alpha power showed a marginally significant negative correlation with PSQI ( r = −0.189, p = 0.051).

In the multivariable Cox regression model including T-stage, N-stage, clinical stage, surgical margins, and the status of C228T for overall survival, clinical stage remained significant (HR = 2.373; 95% CI: 1.072–5.256; p = 0.033) and the status of C228T was marginally significant (HR = 2.352; 95% CI: 0.995–5.558; p = 0.051).

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).

In addition controlling for pain medication and SSRI/SNRI use made the model predicting brushing pleasantness from anxiety marginally significant (pain medication: ( F (5, 75) = 2.321, P = 0.051; age: β = 0.281, t = 2.487, P = 0.015; CPGQ: β = −0.353, t = −2.215, P = 0.030; SSRI/SNRI: F (5, 75) = 2.322, P = 0.051; age β = 0.280, t = 2.480, P = 0.015; CPGQ: β = −0.352, t = −2.262, P = 0.027).

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 ].

In our study, which was conducted over a period of 30 months, we found an overall recurrence rate of 16.4%, with a marginally significant difference (p-value = 0.051) between the counseled (12.3%) and the non counseled groups (28.6%).