“marginally significant”

Besides, the T2 type by group interaction reached a marginally significant level ( F (1, 44) = 3.978, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.083).

Age was significant, β = -0.023, t = -2.18, p = 0.033, 95 % CI [-0.045, −0.002], anxiety symptom scores (BAI) were marginally significant, β = -0.028, t = -1.98, p = 0.052, 95 % CI [-0.056, 0.000], and depression symptom scores (BDI) and months since last injury were significant, β = 0.025, t = 2.04, p = 0.045, 95 % CI [.001, 0.049]; β = 0.002, t = 2.27, p = 0.027, 95 % CI [.000, 0.005], respectively.

Stroke history modified risk association: Non-stroke patients showed significant risk elevation (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09–2.05; p = 0.013), while stroke survivors demonstrated marginally significant increased mortality (HR 3.04, 95% CI 0.99–9.34; p = 0.052).

One-way ANOVA revealed a marginally significant difference in the protein expression of TrkB (F (2, 13) = 3.734, p = 0.052) and significant difference in pTrkB level (F (2, 11) = 4.811, p = 0.032).

The interaction effect was marginally significant, F (2, 396) = 3.0, p = 0.052, partial η 2 = 0.02.

However, in the high Bd dose treatment, infection intensity had a significant negative effect (GLM: B = − 4.38, SE = 1.73, F 1,10 = 6.39, P = 0.03), and the length of larval development a marginally significant positive effect ( B = − 5.01, SE = 2.28, F 1,9 = 5.01, P = 0.052) on toadlet body mass.

Stagnant water in premises was marginally significant across sub-districts (χ 2 = 12.495, df = 6, p = 0.052) and was reported in fewer yards (13.4%) as opposed to those without (85.8%).

While the IES-R was not associated with hypertension ( p = 0.083), the avoidance and intrusion subscales of IES-R3 as well as the avoidance subscale of IES-R6 were significantly ( p = 0.033, 0.027, 0.035, respectively) associated with hypertension, and its association with IES-R6 hyperarousal was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

Even more importantly, a marginally significant interaction between type of IMS stroking and percentage of self-other morphing (Identity) was observed (F 4,72 = 2.475, η 2 = 0.121, p = 0.052) (Fig. 2A ).

Additionally, there were marginally significant excesses of heterozygosity present in the islands of Hawaii ( P = 0.052), Lanai ( P = 0.052), and Molokai ( P = 0.086).

The main effect of time change direction was marginally significant, F (1, 23) = 5.76, p = 0.052.

Figure 5 (b) shows that the difference in the distribution of the mean “C-G discrepancy” between the two orthogonal directions was significant among T1 ( p < 0.0001), T2 ( p < 0.0001) and marginally significant among T3/T4 diseases ( p = 0.052).

After controlling for other variables in the model, DUB showed a marginally significant association with preoperative HR (β = 0.427, p = 0.052).

1 A two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA on onset-offset match shows a marginally significant effect of contrast [ F (1, 3) = 9.83, p = 0.052], but no significant effect of match type [onset vs. offset, F (1, 3) = 0.02, p = 0.89] and no significant interaction [ F (1, 3) = 3.92, p = 0.14].

Of note, in Model 2 (just demographics), participants who identified as people of color had lower odds of suicide risk compared to White participants (aOR 0.357, 95%CI 0.15, 0.84), this association was attenuated and marginally significant ( p = .052) when the mental health variables were added in, and then no longer significant when the social support variables were added. 3.3.3.

Phenotypic plasticity and integration had a marginally significant positive relationship in the low-latitude garden ( Figure 5 ; F 1, 26 = 4.16, P = 0.052) and non-significant in the high-latitude garden ( Figure 5 ; F 1, 26 = 0.16, P = 0.688).

While more passive use was unrelated to self-reported nonverbal decoding skill, gender remained a marginally significant positive predictor (β std = 0.10, p = 0.052) indicating that females reported being more skilled nonverbal decoders than males.

DLPFC showed a marginally significant correlation with PE from VBM (r = -0.49, p = 0.052).

This way of classifying children into rotators and non-rotators had a marginally significant relation with age ( r = .25, p = .052) but a clear relationship with verbal intelligence ( r = .40, p = .002). 2.2.3.

The main effect of time showed a marginally significant effect ( P = 0.052), with a significant increase in responsiveness from t0 to t18 ( P = 0.03) (t0: 3.5 ± 1.1, t18: 3.8 ± 1.2, t24: 3.7 ± 1.2).

The results showed that the main effects of group ( F 1, 56 = 1.83, p = 0.181) and session ( F 1, 44 = 1.42, p = 0.240) were not significant, but there was a marginally significant interaction effect ( F 1, 44 = 3.98, p = 0.052).

Furthermore, the correlation between letter knowledge and WD1 within the DHH group was marginally significant ( p = .052), indicating a possible relation between kindergarten letter knowledge and word decoding already from the first measurement.

Among men, null associations were observed between all anthropometric measures with incident DN in the multivariate analysis although the 3 rd quartile of WHtR showed marginally significant results ( P = 0.052).

The top–down attention effect is marginally significant at the palm location only for the right-handers without significant hand proximity attention [ F (1,7) = 2.34, P = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 1.53].

It is worth noting that the externalizing PC was marginally significant at P = 0.052.