“marginally significant”

The difference between the base group and the negative reinforcement group in the expected condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

However, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between anthropomorphic cues and situational loneliness (F(1, 236) = 3.82, p = 0.052) showing that the effect of anthropomorphic cues on perceived product personalization is likely to be more pronounced when consumers experienced high (vs. low) situational loneliness.

For the fully expanded leaves, the difference was much larger and there was a marginally significant interaction between heat and drought (p=0.052), suggesting that the effect of heat on LT was greater in combination with drought ( Figures 1C, D ).

When assessing group differences in power, there were marginally significant differences in low frequency power [ F (2, 49) = 3.14, p = 0.052] due to the controls exhibiting greater low frequency power compared to schizophrenia and autism, but this did not survive Bonferroni correction ( p = 0.110; p = 0.140, respectively).

Finally, the coefficient of lastborns is positive and marginally significant (β = 0.15; p = 0.052) suggesting lastborns were not disadvantaged compared to only children in mother–child closeness.

In a case-only analysis a marginally significant difference was detected between males and females overall (p = 0.0520) and in GBM (p = 0.0428) (Supplemental Table 1 ).

23.5%), but this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

Finally, pregnancy was a marginally significant predictor suggesting that those with a history of pregnancy were 59% less likely to report multimethod use ( P = .052).

Regarding the subthemes, the same assumption was true for Psychological Well-being ( p < 0.001) and Sexual Adjustment ( p = 0.003), while marginally significant results were found for the Psychological Distress subtheme ( p = 0.052).

However, a marginally significant difference was found between treatments (F (1,28) = 4.11, p = 0.052), and a significant one within treatments (F (1,28) = 7.73, p = 0.01).

For MHC-linked loci, D20Img2 alone had a higher F ST than expected under neutrality in some population pairs, in both Fdist2 (AIT/TSO: p = 0.003; marginally significant probability for FIR/MAE: p = 0.052) and DetSel (AIT/TSO: p = 0.018; AAM/ALA: p = 0.02) ( Table 3 and figures S1 and S3 ).

A marginally significant cluster was found in neutral trials in 188–216 ms ( T sum = 344.235, p = 0.052).

In Model 2 ( Fig 4A ), RAN ( p = .002) and arithmetic ( p < .001) were significant predictors of reading ( R 2 = .42), while grapheme-phoneme processing was marginally significant ( p = .052).

Especially on CD, a strongly significant negative correlation was observed ( p ≤ 0.001), whereas those on PD and AD were marginally significant ( p = 0.052 and 0.061, respectively).

Sleep quality was the only significant predictor of incubus hallucination frequency, although dissociative experiences was a marginally significant predictor; P = 0.052 (Fig. 3 c).

The difference in change scores between groups with different postbaseline treatment status was marginally significant ( P =0.052).

Four or more emergency room visits were marginally significant, with lower likelihood compared to no visits ( p = .052).

The indirect effect via attention was significant (β=-0.16, 95% confidence interval; CI [-0.40, -0.02], p =0.034), making the direct effect marginally significant (β=-0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.00], p =0.052).

Prior knowledge (interim test accuracy) was not significantly correlated with post attitude ratings ( t ( df = 129) = −0.417, p = 0.677), and the positive link between final knowledge and attitude remained marginally significant when prior knowledge was controlled for ( t ( df = 129) = 1.960, 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%).

Finally, a significant interaction of ‘ Group ’ and ‘ Sound Intensity ’ [ F (1,38) = 12.15, P < 0.05] was found for valence ratings, indicating that SAD patients rated loud stimuli more negatively than HCs ( Table 2 ).This interaction was marginally significant for arousal ratings [ F (1,38) = 4.02, P = 0.052].

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

A repeated measures ANOVA, with condition (SP, SN, IP, IN, CC) as a within-subject factor, revealed a marginally significant main effect of condition ( F (4,104) = 2.43, p = 0.052).

This group difference in unadjusted spectral power was marginally significant for theta only ( F (1,29) = 4.092, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.124) ( unadjusted power analyses are reported in Additional file 2 ).

The difference between faculty groups was most evident in the constructed response items where the difference was marginally significant (paired Student’s t test, t = 2.04, P = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 0.245).