“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant difference in depression scores ( p = 0.055), with females having slightly higher scores (mean = 10.11 ± 4.06) than males (mean = 8.80 ± 3.18).

To investigate directly the difference between schema‐updating and schema‐violating trials, we followed up with another linear mixed‐effects model that only included data from schema‐updating and schema‐violating trials, which showed a marginally significant difference ( b = 3.03, SE = 1.58, t = 1.92, p = 0.055, 95% CI [−9.46, 5.78], partial R 2 = 0.0018).

Anemia was more common in AIDS patients (41/52 (78.8%)) than others, this difference was marginally significant ( P -value=0.055).

Demographic characteristics Demographic characteristics, entered in step 1 of the regression, significantly predicted COVID Stress Scales scores, except for worry about the socioeconomic impact of COVID‐19, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.055).

The increases in the CCFs after increases in the peak RVP to 50 and 70 mmHg were statistically significant in all segments ( P < 0.05), including segment 4, where a marginally significant increase was observed ( P = 0.055).

BMI demonstrated a small-to-moderate negative association with overall QoL (β = −0.205, p = 0.005), while the negative association with age was small and marginally significant (β = −0.134, p = 0.055).

However, psychological richness showed a marginally significant relationships (β = –0.014, p = .055).

72%; RR ratio: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00–1.24), which was marginally significant ( p =0.055).

We genotyped this variant in the GAIN BP case-control samples and found a marginally significant association with mood-incongruent psychotic BP compared with controls (additive model: OR = 1.64, P -value = 0.055; dominant model: OR = 1.73.

The density correlation function which relates seed content in fecal deposits to nearby deposit density was marginally significant at Martinazo (P = 0.055, Fig 5e ), exceeding the upper envelope at short (r = 0.5–2.5 m) and long (r = 47 m) distances.

Adding the quadratic estimation yield marginally significant increment in the association, t (57) = 1.96, p = 0.055, boosting the β to 0.48 and the R 2 to 0.23 (see Figure 1 ).

There was evidence of marginally significant between-study heterogeneity ( I 2 =33.9% P =0.055), but when repeating the meta-analysis under the random-effects model, we found that evidence for association remained significant (pooled OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.00–1.27; P =0.04).

Differences in years of education were marginally significant ( P =.055), with Hispanic decedents (median = 13 years) and black decedents (14 years) observed to have the lowest years of education compared with white decedents (14 years).

A log-rank test stratified by CP class, portal vein invasion and AFP level (<7 ng/ml) was marginally significant ( p = 0.055).

Table 2 also shows a marginally significant effect for the PII (F (2,50) = 3.01; p = .055), and PIx3 concerning the high frequency band (F (2,50) = 2.99, p = .056); these parameters trended to be higher for the SFT than for the FT and SIT tasks.

Consistent with previous results regarding the UG and the DG, we found a marginally significant main effect for the Game: F (1, 90) = 3.78, p = 0.055, η 2 p = 0.04, indicating that the proportion of equal split offers was higher for UG participants ( M = 70.0%, SD = 40.9) compared to DG participants ( M = 55.1%, SD = 45.9).

When we repeated the analysis using the negative value of FIB-4 < 1.45 (rule out criterion for the presence of LF), we found an inverse association between low FIB-4 score and AEs at univariable OR: 0.45, 95%CI 0.24–0.86, p = 0.015, a marginally significant value at multivariable analysis (using Model A variables) with OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.30–1.01, p = 0.055).

Notably, the left parietal inferior region showed a significant correlation during action observation ( r = 0.48, p = 0.041), and a marginally significant correlation during action execution ( r = 0.39, p = 0.055).

Sub-analysis of Cortisol Levels According to Source and Time of Day Sub-analysis according to the biospecimen source showed a significant effect of plasma ( p = 0.036) and marginally significant effect of saliva ( p = 0.055).

The likelihood ratio was marginally significant ( p = 0.055), which is evidence that the main effects model fit the data relatively poorly.

The difference was marginally significant (87.0% vs 61.9% p= 0.055).

However, this relationship was marginally significant for the trochanteric region ( P = 0.055).

Finally, test operator was found to be only a marginally significant predictor of the FP rate in the weighted regression analysis (ß = −2.7E-7, p = .055).

Gender differences were observed, with men scoring higher than woman on all problematic substance use and behavioural addictions, F s > 9.77, p s < 0.002, η p 2 s > 0.004, aside from gaming, which was marginally significant, F (1, 2639) = 3.70, p = 0.055, η p 2 s = 0.001 (Table 4 ).

This difference was significant for Intensity (Means: 4.13 and 3.58, t (40) = 4.84, P < 0.0001), Valence (Means: 5.38 and 4.74, t (40) = 6.19, P < 0.0001), Behavioral Contagion (Means: 3.91 and 3.43, t (40) = 3.32, P < 0.005) and Emotional Contagion (Means: 4.13 and 3.58, t (40) = 6.34, P < 0.0001), and marginally significant for Arousal (Means: 3.60 and 3.39, t (32) = 2.00, P = 0.055; df modified for nonequal variance).