“marginally significant”

There were marginally significant associations between TASC-r total score ( B = − 0.66, SE = 0.27 , t (39) = − 2.48, adjusted p = 0.053) and TASC-r task subscale score ( B = − 1.04, SE = 0.38 , t (39) = − 2.76, adjusted p = 0.053) predicting decreased CL-ARI in the next rating.

It is noteworthy that “my supervisor used my data in papers/patents without acknowledging my contribution” was also marginally significant difference ( p = 0.053) among the three major science categories. • “my supervisor took away or threatened to take away my funding” Follow up analyses of standardized residuals indicate that participants in Engineering experienced higher than expected rates of four of the five contextual behaviors: visa cancellation threats, lab stays, threats to funding and unacknowledged use of data ( Figure 2 ).

Only in the case of Hungary in the 40th–60th percentile split, we did not find a significant difference, and in the 60th–40th percentile split, the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

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.

By regressing out the effects of age, sex, education, and TIV, we found that for the N-to-M progression, sNC from BABRI presented a marginally significant positive correlation between the GM density of the superior temporal gyrus and that of the hippocampus ( r = 0.400, p = 0.053), while this correlation disappeared in pNC ( r = 0.218, p = 0.455) in the BABRI sample.

There was also a marginally significant effect at Oz electrode, t (18) = 2.07, p = 0.053 (mean difference 0.27 μV, 95% confidence interval 0.04–0.55 μV).

Additionally, eating attitudes were positively associated with rumination ( r =.23, p =.002) and catastrophizing ( r =.34, p <.001), and showed a marginally significant association with acceptance ( r =.16, p =.053).

A Games‐Howell post hoc test that contrasted self‐initiated cheaters ( M = 3.62, SD = 0.54) with fair players ( M = 3.37, SD = 0.78) revealed a marginally significant effect of Extraversion ( p = .053, d between = 0.41).

The simple slope of mu suppression at C4 in the Video-Only condition when controlling for all the other variables was marginally significant (β = −0.15 [−0.30, −0.00], t = −1.94, P = 0.053).

The global sex-by-covariate interaction test was marginally significant (χ2 (13) =22.15; p=0.053), which suggests the presence of possible sex differences in the associations.

However, between-group comparisons found differences in reaction time for the “faces_recent condition (U = 77.00, p < 0.035) and two marginally significant differences for the faces_old (U = 82.00, p < 0.053) and places_old conditions (U = 82.00, p < 0.053).

The extent of overestimation in both functional and phylogenetic β diversity increased significantly with differences in island area ( Δβ F , P <0.05, and Δβ P , P <0.001), whereas overestimation in taxonomic β diversity ( Δβ T ) was marginally significant ( P =0.053) (Supplementary Table S5).

Moreover, APTT prolongation > 48 s remained to be an independent predictive factor for in-hospital fatality after adjusting for APACHE II score (HR: 3.34, P = 0.006), and was marginally significant after adjusting for SOFA score (HR: 2.43, P = 0.053).

The three-way interaction between Grip, Response and Block was marginally significant, F (2,34) = 3.21, MSE = 3235.89, p = .053, η p 2 = .159.

In the self-initiated condition, O showed no significant arm motion in the pre-MI period ( χ 2 (1) = 1.34, p = 0.25) and Y showed marginally significant forward motion ( χ 2 (1) = 3.76, p = 0.053).

The main effect of salience was marginally significant, Estimates = −0.131, β = −0.150, t = −1.94, p = 0.053, Cohen’s d = −1.942.

After controlling for age, the results reported significant group differences in FBI levels ( F (2,68) = 6.252, p = 0.003, partial η 2 = 0.157); FGW ( F (2,67) = 16,670, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.332) and marginally significant differences in body anxiety ( F (2,67) = 3.077, p = 0.053, partial η 2 = 0.084).

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

Linear regression indicated that the slope was not significantly different from zero at one hour and marginally significant after 2 hours of O 3 exposure ( P = 0.053).

The 50–100 Hz group also showed a marginally significant difference relative to the reference group (β = 0.424, p = 0.053).

For Conscientiousness, the direct effect on attitudes toward climate change was found to be marginally significant, b = 0.088, SE = 0.045, z = 1.939, p = 0.053, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.00096 to 0.1770.

However, whereas the taxon and interaction effects are marginally significant ( anova , F 8, 23 =2.34, P =0.053), the high number of parameters leads to its rejection according to AIC C ( Table 2 ).

Finally, there was a marginally significant ( p = 0.053) result showing more non-LE state doctors (M = 6.96, SD = 9.97) than LE state doctors (M = 5.27, SD = 8.39) directly told patients their Lyme disease symptoms were just in their head (i.e., psychosomatic).

Leaf area variables in response to warming Rainforest groups differed significantly in their responses to warming for LA and LAR ( P ≤0.05) and differences were marginally significant for SLA ( P =0.053; Table 2 ).

AMS (-) subjects also carried more A than G alleles in PDGFA -rs1800814, although the observed difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.053).