“marginally significant”

Additionally, higher monthly income exhibited a marginally significant positive association (B = 0.196, p = 0.053, Exp(B) = 1.217, 95%CI [0.998, 1.484]), suggesting that individuals with higher incomes were slightly more likely to consider facial cosmetic surgery.

Global health trainings correlated with significantly higher ratings of the 'educational system' (p = 0.007) and the 'health system structure' (p = 0.007), while the item 'politics' was marginally significant (p = 0.053).

Novelty check A between-participant ANOVA with historical representation as a three-level factor revealed a marginally significant effect of treatment condition on how new participants perceived aspects of African history they watched, F (1, 261) = 3.78, p = .053, η p 2 = .014, with participants in the positive history condition ( M = 3.21, SD = 2.01) perceiving the aspects of history as more novel in comparison to participants in the negative factual history condition ( M = 2.77, SD = 1.66).

There was only one marginally significant difference showing a higher level in the SHAM group in the vSub (t = 3.699, fdr-corrected p = 0.053).

The amplitude of the pre-saccadic localization exhibited a marginally significant reduction of -0.6 ± 0.9 dva at the adaptation target position ( t (12) = -2.15, p = .053) and a significant reduction at the positions 3 dva above and below the adaptation target ( t (12) = -2.93, p = .013 and z = -2.27, p = .023).

lindemuthianum -inoculation on the levels of herbivory ( p < 0.01, see Table S3 ) but not for Trichoderma strain or bean cultivar ( p > 0.05, Kruskal Wallis tests), although the exact p -values indicate ‘marginally significant’ effects ( p = 0.053 for ‘cultivar’ and p = 0.057 for ‘ Trichoderma ’).

Analysis of the distance the rats covered in the open field revealed a marginally significant main effect for treatment (F (1,46) = 3.96, p = 0.053).

There was a marginally significant difference between the stimulus groups ( f (2,84) = 3.04, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.068).

A marginally significant difference was observed between ANXA10 expression and Lauren classification ( p = 0.053, Fisher’s exact test).

Pairwise comparisons revealed the largest significant differences between AF—AL and AF—AP ( p = 0.009 for both), followed by AA—AF ( p = 0.019) and AA—AP ( p = 0.040); a marginally significant difference between AA—AL ( p = 0.053); and a close association between AL and AP ( p = 0.068); however, after correction for multiple sampling, differences were significant only for the AF—AL and AF—AP comparisons.

Differentiation between group B and C was marginally significant (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.

Results showed that patients with ACS following the experimental strategy had a lower risk of the primary endpoint (2.95% versus 5.26%; HR 0.55; 95% CI [0.35–0.89]; p=0.014; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.032), driven by a lower risk of all-cause mortality (2.19% versus 4.28%; HR 0.51; 95% CI [0.30–0.87]; p=0.013; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.021), as well as a marginally significant reduced risk of bleeding (HR 0.58; 95% CI [0.33–1.01]; p=0.053; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.334) compared with patients receiving the reference regimen.[ 19 ] In the same direction, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study, a post-hoc analysis of the TWILIGHT trial, evaluated the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy compared to DAPT with aspirin plus ticagrelor in 2,342 event-free patients who had completed 3 months of DAPT.

One marginally significant correlation was found between itching at Time 0 and false alarm rates ( r [ 14 ] = 0.53, p = 0.053), suggesting that participants in the active condition may have been distracted by higher initial itching sensations than those in the sham condition.

In the resulting model, the density of voles in year t − 1 became marginally significant (GLMM, coefficient estimate = 0.12, CI: 0.00 – 0.25, p = .053).

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).

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).

The interaction of icon type × cognitive level had a marginally significant effect on the FD ( p = 0.053).

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).

This is also compatible with IC 50 -based weak and strong binders ( p = 0.264 and p = 0.311, respectively), and with %Rank-based strong binders for which the result was marginally significant ( p = 0.053; see Supplementary Table 10 ).

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 ).

Two-way repeated measure ANOVA of validity (100, 75 versus 50%) × group (open-skilled, closed-skilled versus control) testing the effects on the switch cost of response times indicated that the validity × group effect on the switch cost of response times was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

The model including the diversity variable revealed a significant interaction between face race and index number, χ 2 (1, N = 89) = 6.95, p = 0.008, and a marginally significant interaction between face race, diversity of experience, and index number, χ 2 (2, N = 89) = 5.87, p = 0.053.

The dc-CA adjusted explained variation was 16.47%; tests based on sectors and species showed significant relationships (combined test for all axes, pseudo- F = 2.6, p = 0.006), the dimensionality test based on case scores was significant for the first axis (pseudo- F = 4.2, p = 0.001) and marginally significant for the second one (pseudo- F = 1.1, p = 0.053).