“marginally significant”

The difference for the medium group was marginally significant ( P =0.054).

In the case of the writing/research skills scale, a change—from a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.054, r = 0.35) to a significant difference at the final test ( p = 0.040, r = 0.37)—was observed.

Together, the two variables were marginally significant ( p = 0.054) in predicting whether an individual was a Younger or Older participant, and non-significant after controlling for Acquired Financial Knowledge .

Multivariate regression analysis Including informing and task prompting in a multivariate regression analysis (see Table 4 ), resulted in an overall marginally significant multivariate model (p = 0.054).

In 2008, but not 2009, there were marginally significant differences among localities ( F 4,725 = 2.34, P = 0.054), with Matasgordas and Hinojos having the largest and smallest flowers, respectively (Online Resource 2).

positive words was marginally significant (t = 2.72; 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.

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.

The global linear fit of the analysis was marginally significant in [NP-PP] [ R 2 = .09, F (1,38) = 4.00, p = .054] (see the Figure S1 ).

Regarding the HFHL, the positive correlations observed in the Q2 and Q3 of NHR did not reach statistical significance (Q2: OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.20; Q3: OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45), and Q4 could be considered as marginally significant (Q4: OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.46, p = 0.054).

We found a marginally significant source x outcome interaction effect (F 1,12 = 4.55, p = 0.054).

The increase in interference effects in accuracy with the number of the SL G alleles was also significant or marginally significant in all four distracter conditions in run1 (threat: r = 0.195, p = 0.054; neutral: r = 0.170, p = 0.082; scrambled: r = 0.192, p = 0.057; null: r = 0.218, p = 0.036; all one-tailed correlations).

4 E) but positively correlated with the PC2 values at a marginally significant level ( r = 0.17, P = 0.054; Fig. 4 F).

The main effect of task was marginally significant, indicating higher RTs in the Stroop compared with the Simon task (Δ = 17 ms), F (1, 38) = 3.96, p = .054, η p 2 = 0.09.

It also showed a significant effect of population of origin (F 1,118 = 8.654, P = 0.004) and marginally significant effect of season (F 1,118 = 3.792, P = 0.054) on gut length in guppies.

Association of resistance traits and physiology to performance The RDA showed a reduced separation of the morphological and physiological variables (eigenvalues axis 1 < 0.1; cumulative variance 99.1%), although the axes were marginally significant (axis 1: F = 2.1, p = 0.054; all axes: F = 1.06, p = 0.056) ( Fig. 5 ).

This finding was marginally significant ( p = 0.054).

However, the Gini coefficient showed a marginally significant negative association ( p = 0.054), meaning that municipalities in Pará with greater income equality are associated with lower mortality rates from COVID-19.

The correlation was marginally significant (r = 0.350, n = 31, p = 0.054) with a tendency for higher composite z-scores for MBT to correspond with longer latencies of rats to approach food in the center of the NSF ( Figure 5G ).

iAUC was significantly higher after ingestion of ArgB compared to CB ( p = 0.001) while the difference between BCAAsB and CB iAUCs was marginally significant ( p = 0.054, Table 3 ).

Concerning the construct Attitude, its p-value can be considered marginally significant (p-value = 0.054), and for the principle of conservation, we decided to accept H1.

Visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested no evidence of publication bias, and this was supported by a marginally significant Egger’s test (p = 0.054).

For comparisons between different subtypes of tumours, the F-test in the ANOVA was marginally significant ( P =0.054), indicating that the mean expression levels were not the same for different subtypes of tumours.

A regression of SD4 traits and gender (S9 Table in S1 File ) yielded a unique contribution of narcissism to approach the frowny icon in Phase 2 (P2 NA), β = .158, t (265) = 2.30, p = .022, and a marginally significant unique contribution to switch point, β = −.134, t (186) = −1.93, p = .054.

The valley between these two peaks was marginally significant (p = 0.054).