“marginally significant”

More specifically, an increase in scores of individualism decreased the effect of anxiety on passive-submissive coping style: interaction was marginally significant, F (1,820) = 3.76, β = –0.10, t (848) = –1.94, p = 0.052.

A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA on the slopes of the RTs as a function of the binary logarithm of the response set size revealed a main effect of response set ( F 1,16 = 9.17, p = 0.008), a marginally significant effect of ET ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.052), and a marginally significant effect of condition ( F 1,16 = 4.41, p = 0.051).

The adjusted effect of malaria infection on the difference in eosinophils (P = 0.01), basophils (P<0.001), red blood cells (P<0.001) and hematocrit (P<0.001) was significant, while it was marginally significant on lymphocytes (P = 0.052), with infection being associated with a greater drop in all the above mentioned cell numbers.

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 ).

Cases with high miR-150-5p expression were also found to have more frequent intraperitoneal recurrence than those with non-high miR-150-5p expression, with the difference being marginally significant (20.5% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.052).

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).

Finally, there was a marginally significant group × time interaction for the TEIQue, t = 1.95 , p = 0.052 , f 2 = 0.01, but these scores on the TEIQue did not significantly differ from baseline at Time 3, t = 1.57, p = 0.123, d = 0.21.

For the subgroup with low facilitation in the pre-change epoch (Figure 4 C) we observed a marginally significant main effect of configuration [ F (1, 5) = 6.41; p = 0.052] and a significant change by block interaction [ F (4, 20) = 3.95; p < 0.05], all other main effects and interactions (notably including the configuration by change interaction) were not significant (all p > 0.180).

As shown in Table 3 , Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary Table 4 , the ACME of IL-8 was statistically significant for PFS ( p =0.036) and was marginally significant for OS ( p =0.052).

When comparing 7 minutes exposure to 3.5 minutes exposure groups, there were no significant differences in overall ratings between the two [b = -0.16, STE = 0.29, χ 2 (1) = 0.29, p = 0.59] and only a marginally significant exposure x item type interaction [χ 2 (3) = 7.74, 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 ).

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).

For the vivid imagery visualizer style dimension, the 4-factorial ANOVA showed significant main effects, with F (1, 1030) = 12.56, p < 0.01, for grapheme-color synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 14.36, p < 0.01, for sound-color synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 7.47, p < 0.01, and for lexical-gustatory synaesthesia, and a marginally significant effect for sequence-space synaesthesia, F (1, 1030) = 3.79, p = 0.052.

The follow-up sex-split (compare groups) MANOVA with neuroticism as a dichotomous between-subject variable showed a marginally significant three-way interaction of target presence, set size, and neuroticism in men, F (2, 27) = 3.15, p = .052, η 2 = .11, and in women, F (1, 38) = 3.83, p = .058, η 2 = .10.

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.

There was a marginally significant relationship between higher log 10 NfL levels at time 1 with lower brainstem volume ( r 32 = −0.35, p = 0.052), which remained marginal after controlling for age and sex ( r 28 = −0.35, p = 0.061).

Mean log parasite density was significantly lower in lowland urban by 0.371 (95%CI: 0.188–0.554, p < 0.001) and marginally significant in highlands (coef = -0.268; 95%CI: -0.539 – -0.002, p = 0.052), compared to lowland rural.

The effect of treatment on pod number followed the same trend ( χ 2 2 = 6.46, P = 0.04), but the interaction with plant cohort was marginally significant ( χ 4 2 = 9.38, P = 0.052; Figure 3B ).

final, within-subjects factor) ANOVA conducted on the last probe trial of long delay conditioning training revealed a Stimulus × Segment interaction, F (1,28) = 70.63, MSE = 15.20, p < 0.0001, and a marginally significant main effect of stimulus, F (1,28) = 4.13, MSE = 13.30, p = 0.052.

Attitude: preparedness to screen Agreement with the AAS screening incentive was significantly positively associated with lower volume of patients attending (p = 0.008), lower number of deliveries to perform (p = 0.045), having a peer that is a victim of partner abuse (p = 0.012), and a history of having received or pursued any kind of education or information on intimate partner violence (p = 0.019), and marginally significant associated with hospital type (p = 0.052).

As for BMI change, a BMI loss >10% had a marginally significant impact on DFS (HR = 1.87, 95%CI 1.00–3.50, P = 0.052), and it predicted significantly worse OS (HR = 2.15, 95%CI 1.01–4.57, P = 0.047) ( Fig. 2 C and D, Supplementary Table S1 ).

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

All risk categories showed significantly higher self-perceived knowledge compared to minimal risk: low risk (OR 2.27; p < 0.001), medium risk (OR 2.13; p < 0.001), and high risk (OR 1.62; p = 0.052, marginally significant).

No significant non-linearity was observed for 30-day, 90-day, or 180-day mortality ( P = 0.168, 0.298, and 0.142, respectively), while a marginally significant non-linear trend was noted for 360-day mortality ( P = 0.052).

Block 2 regression results showed that the contribution of perceived personality difference over and above that of perceived age difference was marginally significant (Δ R 2 = .030, Δ F (1,117) = 3.84, p = .052).