“marginally significant”

No significant main effect of alignment was found, F < 1, but the main effect of congruency was significant, F (1,127) = 54.14, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.30, MSE = 317, and the main effect of font was marginally significant, F (2,127) = 2.99, p = 0.054, η 2 = 0.04, MSE = 55167, because, as shown in Figure 1B and demonstrated in post hoc HSD Tukey tests, participants were overall faster when words were presented in typical courier than in handwritten case ( p = 0.038; the other two comparisons, p s > 0.40).

In the remaining two trials there was significant to a marginally significant difference of below chance looking [second: t(17) = −2.61, p = 0.054; third: t (16) = −2.82, p = 0.036].

Meanwhile, the difference in cognitive functioning was marginally significant (CF, p = 0.054).

Although the p -value in this case was marginally significant ( p = 0.054; HR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20–1.0; Figure 2 B), the data supported an association between low wp-scores and improved PFS.

Adding EF scale accounted for an additional 6.4% of the variance and this change was marginally significant, F (1, 39) = 3.96, p = .054.

This effect was marginally significant in the example condition as well, t (28) = 1.66, p = 0.054, and d = 0.308.

The main effect of condition was marginally significant, [ F (2, 53) = 3.08, p = 0.054, η 2 p = 0.10], suggesting that the overall number of triplets generated varied across conditions ( M = 38.66, SD = 6.41 in the control condition, M = 35.72, SD = 8.23 in the foot tapping condition, and M = 42.22, SD = 9.15 in the articulatory suppression condition).

High staining patterns of ER-β1 conferred a marginally significant protective effect against developing metastases in the univariable model (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15–1.01, Mantel–Cox test p = 0.054, log-rank test p = 0.045, Figure 2 ), something that did not apply in the multivariable Cox models ( Table 2 ).

Also perceived partner responsiveness as reported by the women was found to have a moderating effect, revealing a marginally significant four-way interaction between perceived partner responsiveness, gender, pressure, and film type, F (1, 40) = 3.95, p = .054.

The second model that included Vpores_L4 had an intermediate amount of explained variation (r 2 m = 0.72) and only detected one additional marginally significant SWC×Vpores_L4 interaction (p value = 0.054, Table 4 ).

The difference between 20 and 100 yen is marginally significant ( p = 0.054).

The relationship between biomass and maize root colonization intensity in excess water treatment was marginally significant (r 2 adj = 0.0567, F 1, 47 = 3.885, P = 0.054).

The 0.5 mg/kg dose exhibited a marginally significant increase in AUC glucose levels compared to controls (p = 0.054), while the 1, 2 and 6 mg/kg doses all evinced substantial increases in AUC values (p < 0.001); these effects were evident 15–30 minutes after the glucose challenge.

This effect is consistent across participants and leading to significant clusters at CTOA = 708 (cluster p = 0.011 ) and to a marginally significant cluster at CTOA = 1,042 (cluster p = 0.054 ).

Additionally, scale2 exhibited a marginally significant increase ( p =0.054).

There was a marginally significant trial effect ( EST = −3.65, SE = 1.89, t = −1.93, p = 0.054).

A marginally significant three-way interaction of Group × Agent × Context was also revealed ( F (1,70) = 3.83, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.05).

The two-way interaction of age group × sentence target was marginally significant, F (1,131) = 3.77, p = 0.054, np 2 = 0.03.

When comparing the normative lifetime exposure ratings of first presentations in the study phase, we found a marginally significant main effect of lifetime exposure in the LPC time window, F (1, 42) = 3.94, p = 0.054, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\hat{\eta }}_{G}^{2}$$\end{document} η ˆ G 2 = 0.007.

In relation to left insular cortex, family CPS involvement remained marginally significant (ß = −.22, p = .054), while maternal childhood neglect was non‐significant (ß = −.09, p = .46).

The direct effect of quality of life on perceived stress was marginally significant (b = −0.05, SE = 0.03, β = −0.22, p = 0.054, 95% CI = [−0.11, 0.01]) ( Figure 2 ; Table 2 ). 3.3.

The gain in performance using BA variables compared to clinical variables and laboratory parameters was significant for GBSA ( p = 0.036) and marginally significant for RSF ( p = 0.054).

The results with both incident and prevalent cohorts of the Nun Study show that ApoE4 promotes the cognitive decline of a subject, in that an ApoE4 carrier is expected to have a relatively longer time of the transition from MCI back to intact cognition ( p value = 0.011); a higher risk of being in MCI, which is marginally significant ( p value = 0.054); and a shorter time of the transition from MCI to dementia ( p value = 0.032), compared to a non-carrier.

There were significant effects of participant's sex ( F (1, 624) = 12.54, p < .01, η p 2 = .02) and location ( F (2, 624) = 17.15, p < .01, η p 2 = .05), and a marginally significant interaction ( F (2, 624) = 2.92, p = .054, η p 2 = .01).

The PN-only group also had a significant effect on viral suppression at 6 months (β = 0.610, OR = 1.85, p = 0.035) and a marginally significant effect on being in care at 6 months (β = 0.660, OR = 1.93, p = 0.054), compared to the TAU group.