“marginally significant”

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.

Although the interaction between group and sentence type was marginally significant ( p = 0.053, χ 2 = 18.143, R 2 = 0.20), the effect of group was not significant for any of the sentence types.

The association between the ISI 0,120 level and WMH burden was marginally significant after additionally adjusted by model 2 (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.89, p=0.053).

After dose escalation, group A (400mg TID) had marginally significant further increase in 12-hour mean DBP (p=0.053) but group B (600mg BID) did not achieve statistically significant increases (p=0.25).

However, there was a marginally significant day by group interaction [ F (2, 74) = 3.08; p = 0.053; η p 2 = 0.08], indicating that the change in average responding during habituation over days differed between the groups.

The results in Study 2 found marginally significant group differences in test scores ( F (1,37) = 6.602, p = 0.053, η 2 = 0.097); the total score of the control group (46.69 ± 1.28) was higher than that of the competition group (43.19 ± 1.19).

Poisson regression showed also per hour of attendance a significant decrease in the rate of supportive utterances (total) (RR = 0.99; p = .042) and of reassurances (RR = 0.95; p = .012) and a marginally significant decrease in the rate of acknowledgments (RR = 0.99; p = .053).

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

This association was marginally significant among those with high birth weight (P = 0.053).

50% larger for BFG compared to BF, and marginally significant (SOC: P = 0.053, POXC: P = 0.055, HWC: P = 0.063), whereas the concentrations were not significantly different for AG compared to A ( Fig. 3 ).

The difference between CST and UST rats in corticosterone levels immediately after the 8 th session was marginally significant (p = 0.053).

Differences in fatigue severity over time were marginally significant ( p = 0.053) and in favor of the intervention group (Fig. 3 ).

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.

Subsequent one-way ANOVAs showed that there were significant effects of angular deviations for Targets, F (6,150) = 4.257, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.146, marginally significant effects for Probes, F (6,150) = 2.128, p = 0.053, η 2 p = 0.078, but not significant effects for Irrelevants, F (6,150) = 1.361, p = 0.234, η 2 p = 0.052.

Results In total, 1 year after the mindset induction, students originally assigned at random to the Develop condition reported on average greater intentions to use cultivation strategies when their passion was low ( M = 27.61, SD = 3.75), compared to those in the Fit condition—a marginally significant effect ( M = 25.57, SD = 4.74), b = 2.04, [0.02, 4.11], t (68) = 1.97, p = 0.053, Cohen’s d = 0.48.

A strong association between intracranial bleeding (comprising the diagnosis of spontaneous hemorrhage and vascular pathology) and the risk of obstruction was evidenced in the multivariable analysis, with an OR of 9.14, even though differences were marginally significant ( p =0.053).

Conversely, in the control group, a marginally significant variance was noted in the DMFT score between males and females ( p = 0.053), alongside a statistically significant difference in the amount of teeth with fillings ( p = 0.02), as detailed in 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).

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 multivariate analysis identified radicular pain as a marginally significant predictor of spinal cord injury (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].

The regression model for the pain thresholds in the dominant hand was marginally significant, F (10, 110) = 1.90, p = 0.053, η 2 p = 0.147.

For male left hand 2D:4D there was a marginally significant relationship with percent of male deaths ( B = 1122.12, SE B = 527.77, beta = 0.47, p = .053) and no relationship for female left hand 2D:4D ( B = 579.00, SE B = 375.07, beta = 0.34, p = .15). 4.

For the precuneus, the other side was significant too (RD, r = 0.144, p = 0.038), while for the IFG, the same side was marginally significant for RD, as well ( r = 0.137, p = 0.053).

There was also a marginally significant effect of group, F (1,26) = 4.13, p = 0.053, η 2 = 0.090, suggesting that car experts in general processed the faces more holistically.