“marginally significant”

The interaction between Time and Group was marginally significant, F (1, 60) = 3.87, p = 0.054, η 2 p = 0.061.

Age had a significant weak correlation with the posture score (ρ = 0.29, p = 0.048) and a marginally significant weak correlation with the stability score (ρ = 0.28, p = 0.054).

Clinically, patients with GOF mutations showed a higher frequency of platinum resistance (22/58, 37.9%) than patients with NE-GOF mutations (12/56, 21.4%), and a lower frequency of platinum sensitivity (36/58, 62.1%) than patients with NE-GOF mutations (44/56, 78.6%), although this was marginally significant ( p =0.054) ( Figure 3A ).

The Interaction between congruency and feedback was marginally significant [ F (1, 44) = 3.91, 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.

With non-naive participants removed, the correlation between AOT scores and scratch card gambling frequency was attenuated and became marginally significant, r (153) = −.155, p = .054.

KRAS mutation status in tumor was marginally significant ( p = 0.054).

A repeated measures ANOVA of within-subject effects on reaction times revealed a marginally significant main effect of target color repetition [ F (1, 19) = 4.236, p = 0.054, η 2 p = 0.182] but no effect of reward value [ F (1, 19) = 1.129, p = 0.301, η 2 p = 0.056].

Rats in the second iteration showed a similar, although marginally significant pattern (AB+ vs A−, t (7) = 2.32, p = 0.054, Cohen's d = 0.82; AB+ vs B−, t (7) = 2.36, p = 0.050, Cohen's d = 0.84).

Benefit Finding There was a marginally significant main effect of time during the first‐year post‐diagnosis (B (SE) = 0.32 (0.17), p = 0.054), with benefit finding increasing.

None of the simple effects of non-esteem identification were significant (all p s > .13), but when we decomposed this interaction by salience condition, the two-way interaction between education and non-esteem identification was marginally significant when education was salient ( B = −.42, SE = .217, p = .054, 95% CI [−0.846, 0.007]) but not when it was not salient ( B = .36, SE = .243, p = .14, 95% CI [−0.115, 0.841]).

However, the decline was marginally significant for total CT scan utilization ( P = 0.054).

A Lesion × Block ANOVA revealed a significant effect of block, F (6,126) = 33.13, P < 0.001, and a marginally significant effect of lesion, F (2,21) = 3.37, P = 0.054, as well as Lesion × Block interaction, F (12,126) = 1.72, P = 0.069.

Caregiver status, though marginally significant, also showed some influence (B = 0.445, OR = 1.56, p = 0.054).

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

A linear regression analysis comparing FL between the intervention and control groups found that only the knowledge items were marginally significant ( P = 0.054), with no statistically significant difference in the practice aspect before and after the intervention ( P = 0.657).

There was a strong correlation also between PacBio 0.2 g and Illumina 0.2 g mite datasets (Procrustes R = 0.862), but this was marginally significant ( p = 0.054).

bilateral Whole sample FAA and PAA A marginally significant Time × Group interactions was found when considering PAA values as the dependent variable (F(1,47) = 3.91, p = 0.054) with an increasing trend in the BS group, i.e., becoming more right-lateralized and a decreasing trend in the US group, i.e., becoming left-lateralized.

The statistical results revealed a significant main effect of time ( F (1.15, 48.43) = 60.40, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.59), no group effect ( F (1.42) = 1.22, p = 0.275, η p 2 = 0.03), and a marginally significant group × time interaction ( F (1.15, 48.43) = 3.71, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.08).

Differences between children and adults were indicated by a marginally significant effect of age group [F (1,63) = 3.850, p = 0.054] and a significant visual area x age group interaction [F (3.5, 37) = 6.194, p <0.001].

Additionally, there was a marginally significant interaction effect of Session*Category*Treatment (F (2157) = 3.050, p = 0.054; effect size: η p 2 = 0.035; Greenhouse–Geisser-corrected due to departure from sphericity); with local and historical treatments of ambiguous artworks showing higher scores during retest session (local M = 564.30, SD = 201.43; historical M = 522.26, SD = 179.37) than the baseline, and global and historical treatment of non-ambiguous artworks showing higher scores in the retest session (global M = 537.15, SD = 172.49; historical M = 541.87, SD = 184.97) than the baseline ( Table 1 , Figure 4 and Figure 5 ).

Cosinor analysis detected no significant rhythmicity in the 6-meals-a-day groups ( p = 0.139) and a marginally significant rhythm in the ad libitum group ( p = 0.054) ( Figure 4 D). 2.7.

7 , there were marginally significant composite gains at 12 months for the 3-session arm over the 2-session arm ( p = 0.054).

Another round of independent t -tests revealed that 498 natural science majors exhibited a marginally significant difference from 109 social science majors on PosFlow (NS Mean = 30.81, SD = 5.59; SS Mean = 29.66, SD = 5.86; df = 605, t = 1.927, p = 0.054, r 2 = 0.061, Cohen’s d = 0.157) with a medium effect size, while there was a significant difference on NegFlow (NS Mean = 15.35, SD = 3.62; SS Mean = 13.61, SD = 3.49; df = 605, t = –4.568, p < 0.001, r 2 = 0.033, Cohen’s d = 0.371) with a medium effect size (see Table 3 ).

The relationship between physical HRQOL and total MVPA was marginally significant ( p =0.054) and followed a similar pattern to that seen in weekly minutes of total PA.