“marginally significant”

As Figure 1 illustrates, the standardized regression coefficient between injury severity and EDA amplitude was marginally significant ( p = 0.054) and the standardized regression coefficient between physiological arousal and physical aggression was statistically significant ( p = 0.008), as was the indirect effect of injury severity on physical aggression ( β = 0.290, p = 0.018).

The results showed a significant main effect for postoperative day (F 5,150 = 95.32, p <0.001), a significant POd × group interaction (F 15,150 = 2.57, p = 0.002), and a marginally significant main effect for group (F 3,30 = 2.85, p = 0.054).

36.0 months, HR 2.43, 95% CI 0.83–7.15, P =0.087); in the multivariable model, the effect remained marginally significant (HR 3.01, 95% CI 0.98–9.20, P =0.054) ( Table 2 ).

The interaction between the number of inhibitions of the prepotent response after the presentation of the stop signal, cortical area, and laterality was marginally significant (F = 1.4, df = 77, p = 0.054).

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

Furthermore, interaction between FTO rs9939609 polymorphism with the variables (BMI, mFG, serum testosterone and kisspeptin levels) showed significant interaction between FTO AA genotype and mFG ( p = 0.042); whereas the AT genotype of FTO gene showed a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.054) with mFG.

Younger children were more likely to be underweight; however, this association was marginally significant ( p = 0.054), suggesting a possible decline in prevalence with increasing age.

However, compost type exhibited a marginally significant effect on nosZ clade II ( p = 0.054), with the relative abundance in SA being higher in BM than in M treatment ( p < 0.05). 4 Discussion Compared to M, BM has been found to reduce CO 2 and N 2 O emissions; yet the degree in reduction is soil-texture dependent ( Gao et al., 2023 ; Yuan et al., 2017 ).

The small difference in number of fixations between words and pseudowords was marginally significant; W = 703, p = .054.

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).

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.

Results of the LIWC analysis Step 1: Level of Engagement (LOE) There were no significant main effects of Role or Stage ( p s > 0.1), but a marginally significant interaction emerged, F (1, 59) = 3.87, p = 0.054, η 2 = 0.06.

The marginally significant three-way interaction among the main effects (ANOVA, P = 0.054, Table 2 ), however, suggested that F v / F m was affected by an interaction between damage and flow that varied between temperatures.

In this analysis, the impact of cognitive impairment defined by MoCA <23 increased from a marginally significant OR of 1.59 (95% CI 0.98, 2.58; p = 0.054) in the primary multivariate regression analysis with dementia included to a significant predictive OR of 1.8 (95% CI 1.12, 2.89; p = 0.015).

Soil volumetric water content exhibited a weak and marginally significant positive relationship with soil respiration ( R 2 = 0.078, P = 0.054; Figure 5 ).

PD-1 and PD-L1 exhibited somewhat a tendency of positive correlation in scatter plots, the level of expression of these two between the high- and low-risk groups was marginally significant ( p = 0.054 and p = 0.059, respectively).

Translation explained only 3.6% additional variance after lexical inference was controlled for, but the effect was marginally significant ( p = .054).

A mixed ANOVA with Group, Trial type and Block as factors revealed a marginally significant main effect of group [ F (1,10) = 4.78, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.32], and significant main effects of trial type [ F (1,10) = 39.37, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.80], and block [ F (17,170) = 19.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.66].

The associations of SAS-SV score with lower SWEMWBS score remained in respondents who screened negative for anxiety symptoms (adjusted B = −0.08; SE: 0.01; p = 0.022) and were marginally significant in those who screened negative for depression symptoms (adjusted B = −0.06; SE: 0.01; p = 0.054).

The results showed that for the below-median group there was no significant difference between the PC and VR recall scores ( F(1,37) = 0.73, p = 0.399, partial η 2 = 0.02), whereas for the above-median group, the difference was marginally significant despite the decreased statistical power of these analyses ( F(1,31) = 4.03, p = 0.054, partial η 2 = 0.11).

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 ).

A marginally significant group difference in time between T1 and T2 was found, indicating a longer period between measurements in the NC group (p = .054).

The number increased and showed marginally significant after WGP ( p = 0.054, Figure S3 ).

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 ).

Verbal abuse and family conflict was also a marginally significant predictor for auditory social discrimination in right aMTGSTG ( β = −.45, t = −2.005, p = .054) despite the lack of significance of the overall model, F (4, 30) = 1.12, p = .364, R 2 = .13 ( Fig. 3 c).