“marginally significant”

An analysis of MMN and LN enhancements measured 6 months later, at T2, yielded a marginally significant effect of condition in the MMN window ( F (2,32) = 3.23, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.168).

no-deviant trials, t(15) = 28.45, p < .001, as well as a marginally significant difference between pupil latency until maximum on hit vs. missed trials t(15) = -2.11, p = .052.

Offer level The expected interaction between exemplar behavior and exemplar emotion was marginally significant, p = .052.

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

However, the NOR task revealed marginally significant short-term memory deficits in the T1D STZ group ( p = 0.052), whereas non-T1D rats retained intact short-term memory ( p = 0.049).

Among high-educated participants in the total sample, the change over time in vegetable intake was marginally significant (p = .052) and no group differences were found (p = .25).

The N effect was marginally significant, b = .57, z = 1.94, p = .052, CI [−.005, 1.14], OR = 1.77.

Regarding Caring and Sharing attitudes, we observed a similar main effect of time ( Caring : F (1,181) = 34.373, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.160; Sharing : F (1,181) = 58.725, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.245) and condition ( Caring : F (1,181) = 17.959, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.090; Sharing : F (1,181) = 22.442, p ≤ 0.001, ⴄp 2 = 0.110); however, we only identified a marginally significant effect of time × condition interaction effects on the Sharing variable (F (1,181) = 3.815, p = 0.052, ⴄp 2 = 0.021).

The interaction between the duration of the study and age was marginally significant ( p = 0.052), suggesting that younger people (18–34) wanted to spend less time on a study than the 45+ age category.

17 , 21 As with JNK inhibition, this had no statistically significant effect on IL‐6 mRNA at pH 7.4 (Figure 3C,D ) but gave a marginally significant blunting (0.87 ± 0.03 fold decrease, p = 0.052) of the IL‐6 mRNA response at pH 7.1 (Figure 3D ).

Mendelian randomization analysis results Using the IVW method, a marginally significant positive association was observed between CASP3 levels and the risk of ASD (OR = 1.660, 95% CI: 0.995–2.769, p = 0.052).

The correct sentence should read: “However, in contrast with all other measures, the predicted increase for MI results is marginally significant: MI, T2 > T1, paired t(12) = -2.16, p = 0.052.” There is an error in reference 54.

Plant species had significant effects on the OTU richness of fungi inhabiting leaves ( F = 3.026, P = 0.005), roots ( F = 4.550, P < 0.001), and soils ( F = 2.003, P = 0.052, marginally significant) (Table S1).

The racial or ethnic disparity in medication use among those who had previously displayed below-average levels of externalizing problem behaviors was marginally significant (RR = 1.55, p = .052).

Step 3 introduced social anxiety (LSAS), which accounted for an additional but marginally significant proportion of variance, ∆ R 2 = 0.02, F (1,108) = 3.86, p = 0.052.

The backward priming effect was qualified by a marginally significant Backward SOA×Backward Congruency interaction, F (1,58) = 3.94, p = .052, η p = . 06.

The mean change in IL-6 levels was significantly reduced from baseline in the CKDB-315 group (−0.25 pg/mL; p = 0.0262 within the group, with a marginally significant difference between groups ( p = 0.0520) ( Figure S2B ).

Furthermore, the total effects of tone on English word reading were marginally significant ( β = .537, p = .052) and those on word spelling were significant ( β = .785, p < .01) for children with vocabulary scores lower than 1 SD below the mean.

The Rht1 haplotype effect on AR was significant in greenhouse experiments for groups RE-NIL1, CM and FRxRE and in fields experiments for RE-NIL1, CM and MI and marginally significant in the green house for MI ( p = 0.052) and in field tests for FRxRE ( p = 0.086).

Math talk significantly predicted average latency scores, B = −49.63, SE = 16.21, p = .003, and there was a marginally significant effect for average attachment and friendship scores, B = −2.59, SE = 1.31, p = .052.

The frequency of dragging was explained by a marginally significant species × treatment interaction term (F 1, 75 = 3.89, p = 0.052; table 2c ).

A 2 (set size) × 2 (exposure time) × 3 (type of test face) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that the main effect of the exposure time was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.945, p = 0.052, η 2 p = 0.064.

Additionally, it’s important to emphasize that the difference between regular and irregular trials in the older group under the slow tempo condition is marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

The univariate analysis also reveals a trend for FC to reduce the increase in financial difficulty, which is marginally significant (β = −0.18 ± 0.094, p = 0.052) ( Table 3 ).

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).