“marginally significant”

After additionally adjusting for BMI, systolic BP, diabetes mellitus status, total cholesterol, high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, smoking status, alcohol intake, antihypertensive therapy, and lipid‐lowering therapy, the overall OSA association remained significant ( P =0.014): mild OSA was significant (OR: 2.08, P =0.006) and moderate/severe OSA was marginally significant (OR: 1.66, P =0.052) for retinal arteriolar narrowing in men.

The difference in IQ (controls: M = 111 ( SD = 12); ADHD: M = 104 ( SD = 13) between groups was marginally significant ( F (1, 45) = 3.99, p = .052).

Treatment advantages were marginally significant for MF/F 400/10 versus F 10 ( P = 0.052) and MF/F 200/10 versus F 10 ( P = 0.063) adjusting for smoking and study.

A marginally significant difference in stroke mortality was seen in participants taking salt substitute vs. normal salt (χ 2 = 3.78, P = 0.052).

Increasing numbers of targets attained were also associated, in a graded fashion, with decreased mortality ( P = 0.030), fewer hospital admissions and days ( P < 0.001 for both), and lower costs ( P = 0.029); these trends remained statistically significant for all outcomes after adjustment ( P < 0.001), except cost, which was marginally significant ( P = 0.052).

For the mVLT, significant Group × Timepoint × Age interactions were observed for Aggregate Mean [ B = −0.29; SE ( B ) = 0.14; p = .049] and First Administration [ B = −0.76; SE ( B ) = 0.32; p = .023], with a similar marginally significant trend observed for Best Score [ B = −0.40; SE ( B ) = 0.20; p = .052].

The main effect of group was marginally significant ( F = 3.965, p = 0.052, η 2 p = 0.068).

Being 81–85 versus≤70 years was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

The Observed species index included 8 studies (k = 8, N = 2302) and exhibited a marginally significant increase associated with exercise (g = 0.19, 95% CI: −0.002–0.39, P = 0.052), with low between-study heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%).

The intercept‐only model indicated a significant variance of LDC and AUC both at the within‐person and between‐person levels (variance of between‐person LDC marginally significant, p = 0.052).

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.

In the peri-COVID-19 group, the interaction between touch and object was marginally significant ( F (1, 42) = 4.004, P = .052, partial η 2 = .087).

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).

Post hoc between-group comparisons with multiple-comparison adjustment indicated that the intervention group demonstrated significantly better quality of life scores than the control group at the 1-month postoperative assessment (mean difference = 3.49, 95% CI [0.75, 6.23]), although the adjusted P -value was marginally significant ( P = 0.052), suggesting a potential short-term benefit of the intervention.

At the phylum level, soil pH showed a marginally significant effect on fungal community structure ( Figure 7 b, p = 0.052), suggesting a potential but relatively weak influence.

The overall model for changes in PAC-QOL score was marginally significant, with low explanatory power (adjusted R 2 = 0.025, P = 0.052).

A marginally significant result was found for anatomic form ( p = 0.052, accounting for 17% of variance; see Table 3 in Supplementary File 4 ).

The interaction between ethnicity of the stimuli used and internet frequency was marginally significant, F(2,83) = 3.001, p = 0.052, suggesting that masculinity preferences for the three types of male faces differed depending on the amount of internet used (Fig. 3 ).

However, we found a marginally significant interaction between the behaviour type by the ‘roll over’ test and neuter/spay status of dogs ( F 2,85 = 3.882; p = 0.052).

The main effect of Hemisphere was marginally significant ( F (1,14) = 4.51, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.244), with the power in the right hemisphere larger than in the left hemisphere.

However, marginally significant interactions among sociality, valence and SAS/SDS were also found (sociality × valence × SAS, F (1,43) = 3.998, P = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.085; sociality × valence × SDS, F (1,43) = 3.821, P = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.082), which violated the assumption of ANCOVA that covariates should not influence the effect of interest ( Miller and Chapman, 2001 ).

A marginally significant difference was found for eosinophils ( p = 0.052), with higher levels being detected in APA.

It was marginally significant after FDR correction (corrected p = 0.052).

In step 3, the relationship between the chronic illnesses and the willingness to accept the vaccine was marginally significant (χ 2 [1] = 3.65, P = .052).

The interaction between time and group was marginally significant for the orientation domain ( F (3.41,277.71) = 2.51, P = 0.052, η 2 = 0.028), with contrasts revealing a significant linear improvement over time ( F (2,163) = 3.24, P = 0.042), and post hoc tests revealed that differences between all three groups were significant.