“marginally significant”

For negative-neutral trials, the age-corrected ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of peer victimization, F (1, 54) = 3.90; p = .053; η 2 = .067 (see Fig. 1 ).

Men in the highest tertile of zinc intake were at higher risk of PC, (Odds ratio (OR): 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00–1.61), with a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.053).

The Pearson chi‐square test revealed a marginally significant difference across kebeles ( χ 2 = 5.866, df = 2, p = 0.053), indicating spatial variability in climate exposure, which may be associated with microclimatic conditions, topographical features, and unequal access to adaptive resources.

E− Conditions Only (Normal and Opaque Sunglasses) The interaction between Belief and Group with the E− conditions was marginally significant, F (1,47) = 3.99, p = 0.053, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}$$\end{document} η p 2 = 0.077.

The control group showed a similar tendency to the reward group: for the pretest, the participants showed a significant (from day 1 to day 2, p < 0.001) or marginally significant increase (from day 2 to day 3, p = 0.053) over the 3 days; for the posttest, the participants showed a significant increase from day to day.

A marginally significant inverse association between CBF i and Hb was also observed ( p = 0.053).

Interestingly, a marginally significant Condition × Trial number interaction ( F 6,162 = 2.12, p = .053, η p 2 = 0.073) suggested that conditioned freezing responses to CSs of the different conditions changed over the course of generalization.

Bilateral lesion was a marginally significant factor related to dysphagia ( P = 0.053).

Furthermore, the median ARS duration for late recurrence was 10 months, while the median ARS duration for early recurrence was six months, and the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.053).

The within-family effect was not significant averaging across zygosity (beta = -0.126, p = 0.303), but there was a marginally significant interaction of the within effect by zygosity (beta = 0.468, p = 0.053), such that there is a marginally significant within effect for MZ pairs (simple effect beta = -0.354, p = 0.055) but not DZ pairs (simple effect beta = 0.114, p = 0.469).

GG genotype female subjects demonstrated more pronounced decreases in weight and BMI changes post-training ( p < 0.05), with body fat showing a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.053).

Respondents who had challenges in hanging were less likely to use the LLIN compared to those who did not experience challenges while hanging bed nets, but this association was marginally significant (OR=0.59 95% CI: 0.35, 1.01, p=0.053), and these results are shown in Table 2 .

The similar distribution of these characteristics between the two groups, reflected in the p-values (all above 0.05 except for a marginally significant difference in ER status with p=0.053), supports the external validity of the findings derived from this dataset.

Indeed, in this multiple regression, the only remaining significant predictor of hyper-partisan news sharing besides vaccine hesitancy was age, β = 0.21, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.29], P < 0.001, replicating prior work about age and fake news sharing ( 27 ), and affective polarization was a marginally significant predictor, β = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.16], P = 0.053 (all other P s > 0.184).

There was a marginally significant effect of ratio, F (2, 104) = 3.02, p = 0.053, The Developing Mental Number Line: Does Its Directionality Relate to 5- to 7-Year-Old Children’s Mathematical Abilities? = 0.055, and a linear contrast analysis revealed a statistically significant linear trend, F (1, 55) = 4.45, p = 0.040, η p 2 = 0.079, such that performance improved as ratio decreased (e.g., better performance for a ratio of 4:7 than 4:5), as expected.

When categorized by quartiles, compared with Q1, Q4 of RDW was associated with a 2.31-fold increased risk (HR = 2.31, 95%CI: 1.08–4.95, p = 0.032) in the unadjusted model, which remained marginally significant after full adjustment (HR = 2.12, 95%CI: 0.99–4.54, p = 0.053).

Insomnia was significantly predicted by several covariates, including negative associations with age (β = −0.033, p = 0.037), current living situation (β = −0.098, p < 0.001), income level (β = −0.040, p = 0.008), and employment status (β = −0.093, p < 0.001), as well as positive associations with number of live births (marginally significant, β = 0.036, p = 0.053), expected mode of delivery (β = 0.063, p = 0.013), and living arrangements (“who do you live with?”) (β = 0.094, p < 0.001); other covariates (gestational age, pregnancy status, marital status, geographical location, education attainment, and residential area) showed no significant effects.

There was a marginally significant overall dose effect ( p = 0.053) for the number of errors for Path A, with only the high dose level marginally significant ( p = 0.060; Dunnett’s).

However, among those whose eGFR values declined, the relationship was marginally significant (β=0.161, P =0.053) at study baseline.

The mean MUAC was 24.8 cm (SD = 2.64) and the proportion of participants with poor nutritional status was higher among those with inadequate dietary diversity (25.7% vs 19.1%), which was a marginally significant ( p = 0.053) difference ( Table 3 ).

An additional cluster, marginally significant in cluster-based correction ( p = 0.053), was found in left inferior frontal gyrus ( Fig. 2 B ; Table 2 ).

9.2% respectively). Oncological outcomes (OS, CSS) In stage II prostate cancer, significantly better OS is observed in the HIFU group compared with the RT group before IPTW adjustment ( p = 0.001), but the significance is marginally significant after IPTW adjustment ( p = 0.053).

BMI percentile was marginally significant (OR = 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00–1.01]; p = 0.053).

For RT, the results showed that the main effect of familiarity between the familiar condition and the novel condition [ F (1,34) = 17.30, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.37] was significant, and the main effect of appropriateness between the appropriate condition and the inappropriate condition was marginally significant [ F (1,34) = 4.02, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.11].

51.2 years, p = 0.007), while sex distribution was marginally significant ( p = 0.053), necessitating correction for these primary demographic variables; [ 2 ] including additional demographic variables would create sparse cell problems and generate unstable weight estimates with inflated confidence intervals; and [ 3 ] sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, alternative weighting strategies (sex-only, age-only, combined, and exclusion of extreme BMI values) altered BMI prevalence by less than 0.2% points.