“marginally significant”

The variation in prevalence of Rickettsia -positive ticks across all counties was marginally significant (p = 0.052), with a higher prevalence in St.

Sentence stress differences in stressed prefixes had only a marginally significant effect (“w+s+” vs. “w+s−,” W = 14,189.5, p = 0.052, mean values: 0.889 vs. 0.864).

Among individuals with asthma, those who had a preventive dental visit had overall lower total health expenditures (marginally significant at p = 0.052), and their dental expenditures were nearly half of those of individuals who had a treatment dental visit ( p < 0.05).

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).

In addition, we found that the pure effect of vertical distance ([Dist|Env+BF]) is marginally significant ( adjusted R 2 = 8.9%, P = 0.052) ( Table 1 ), whereas the pure effect of stratification ([BF|Env+Dist]) is not significant ( adjusted R 2 = 25%, P = 0.15) ( Table 1 ).

Marital status is marginally significant, as married individuals show a slightly lower odds ratio (OR = 0.837, p = 0.052).

Before correcting for multiple testing, the signal is marginally significant in carnivores (p = 0.052) and positive, but not significant, in artiodactyls (p = 0.29).

These results, summarized in Table 8 , showed that there was a marginally significant effect of the B allele on bolting time ( P = 0.052) but no evidence for significant effects of GA and its interaction with the B allele on bolting time (respectively, P > 0.73, P > 0.66).

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 main effect for comfort with God was marginally significant ( B = −0.16, p =0.052), with the main effect for race not reaching the level of significance ( B = 0.61, p =0.193; Table 3 ).

23.5%), but this difference was marginally significant ( 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.

The interaction between Condition and Group was marginally significant, F (1, 39) = 4.00, p = .052, η p 2 = .09.

A planned contrast on mean BtBC revealed a marginally significant difference between “CS+ HS > CS‐ HS ” and “CS+ LS > CS‐ LS ” (independent t ‐test, t = 1.98, P = 0.052; Figure 6B , right panel).

The effect for the TAX condition was marginally significant [ t (13) = 1.75, p = 0.052].

An ANOVA on the score difference of overconfidence revealed a marginally significant effect for spatial height ( F (1, 93) = 3.89, p = .052, η p 2 = .040) but showed non-significant effects for either scale direction ( F (1, 93) = .37, p = .545, η p 2 = .004) or the interaction between scale direction and spatial height condition ( F (1, 93) = .001, p = .974, η p 2 < .001).

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.

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

SCH had a marginally significant effect on OT ( β = 0.08, p = 0.052) ( Table 2 ).

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

2A ), but this effect appeared weaker than the shift in perception for /aba/ sounds, as suggested by a marginally significant interaction (F(1, 26) = 4,15, p = 0.052) between current stimulus (auditory /aba/, /ada/) and previous stimulus (fused McGurk stimulus, all other stimuli).

The groups did not differ overall ( F [1,36] = 1.378, p = .248, η p 2 = .037), and the interaction of content by group was marginally significant ( F [1,36] = 4.027, p = .052, η p 2 = .114).

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).

We did find marginally significant overexpression of ALS gene transcripts in weedy compared with wild individuals ( p = .052), suggesting constitutive overexpression of ALS may provide a survival advantage to weedy individuals in agriculture fields.

MMSE deterioration was marginally significant (Wave 1 mean 29.29; Wave 2 mean 29.24; t 1946 = -1.94, p = .052).