“marginally significant”

We further found a marginally significant interaction between aphid treatment and plant variety on total chlorophyll content ( F 6 , 45 = 2.25, P = 0.056), where high and low aphid densities reduced chlorophyll content only in Clemson variety but had no effect on other okra varieties ( Figure 5C ).

However, a marginally significant interaction between Deviant type and Group was yielded, F (1,28) = 3.962, p = 0.056.

The gender difference of weighted 12-month prevalence of depressive disorder not otherwise specified was marginally significant (female 1.6% vs. male 1.2%, p = 0.056) [ 3 ].

For lateral sites, the ANOVA results revealed a marginally significant main effect of Grammaticality ( F (1,35) = 3.917, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.101).

More importantly, the interaction effect was marginally significant, b = 0.35, SE = 0.18, t = 1.92, p = 0.056, 95% CI [−0.009, 0.72] (see Figure 4 ).

The analysis yielded a marginally significant main effect of Valence Type [ F (2, 70) = 2.94, p = 0.056, η 2 p = 0.078] and a significant Valence Type x Accent Group interaction [ F (1.96, 68.83) = 3.72, p = 0.030, η 2 p = 0.096].

The repeated measures ANOVA on distance (dist-0 through dist-5) showed a marginally significant main effect, F (4,92)=2.39, p =.056, ηp 2 =.09, which plateaued at the dist-2 location (Fig. 4 B).

vaginalis at month 1 (rho = 0.40, p = 0.03) ( Figure 1A ), a marginally significant correlation between the relative abundance of G. vaginalis and TFV VF concentrations at month 2 (rho = 0.38, p = 0.056) ( Figure 1B ), and no significant correlation by month 3 (rho = 0.1, p = 0.96) ( Figure 1C ).

Compared to the TCS, normalized PM 2.5 concentrations were significantly reduced in four of the five ACSs tested ( Figure 3 A, marginally significant for the Greenway stove, p = 0.056).

Both performances were significantly above the 0.50 chance level (for trials with G: t (11) = 25.72, p<0.0001; for trials with S: t (11) = 12.47, p<0.0001) and the difference between them was marginally significant ( t (11) = 2.13, p = 0.056).

We found a marginally significant genotype x day interaction [F(7,238) = 2.00, p = 0.056], a treatment x day interaction [F(7,238) = 2.23, p = 0.032], no genotype x treatment interaction, a main effect of genotype [F(1,34) = 20.63, p < 0.001], no main effect of treatment, and a main effect of day [F(7,238) = 24.66, p < 0.001].

However this was mitigated by a marginally significant interaction by group [group × change, F (1, 30) = 3.969, p = 0.056], such that this effect was observed in tone speakers ( p < 0.001) but not in the control group ( p = 0.215).

There was also a marginally significant main effect of ASMR video type on changes in affect, F (1, 103) = 2.13, p = .056, η 2 p = .11.

In comparison, when contrasting Met and Val homozygotes, COMT effect on baseline iron was not significant (β = −0.198, p = 0.37), whereas the effect on iron accumulation was marginally significant (β = −0.496, p = 0.056).

In male patients with Alport syndrome, after age adjustment, the negative association between baseline urinary MCP-1/Cr and eGFR slope was marginally significant ( P = 0.056) ( Supplementary Table S1 ).

There was also a marginally significant difference between Generation X and Silents ( p = .056, d = .262) and between Baby Boomers and Silents ( p = .048, d = .247), while the difference between Generation X and Baby Boomers was not significant ( p = .994; d = .01).

The main effect for the requested movement was marginally significant, F (1,82) = 3.76, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.044.

We found a marginally significant effect of robot verbal support on participants' psychological safety scores ( c = 0.35, SE = 0.18, p = 0.056), where participants in groups with robot verbal support had slightly higher psychological safety scores ( M = 6.06, SD = 0.74) than participants in groups without robot verbal support ( M = 5.92, SD = 0.74).

For women, GL3 had a marginally significant effect on the femininity/masculinity index (path coefficient = −0.249, P = 0.056).

In addition, expressive language at 11 and reading comprehension at 11 (both using raw scores) were marginally significant, χ 2 (2) = 5.75, p = .056 and χ 2 (2) = 5.69, p = .058, respectively.

The ANCOVA revealed a significant treatment effect for the DSES, F(1,20) = 12.31, p = .002, and a marginally significant effect for the intrinsic subscale of the Age Universal I-E scale, F(1,20) = 4.07, p = .056, at endpoint.

However, after applying the Bonferroni correction, only maternal sensitivity, maternal controlling behavior, and infant cooperative behavior remained significantly associated with types of maternal violation in the FSFF, while maternal unresponsivity was marginally significant ( p =.056).

The overall model was significant ( R 2 =.16, p = .043) and results suggest that the interaction term was marginally significant ( B = −0.03, SE =0.01, p = .056).

In contrast, statistically marginally significant differences were found in LDL-C levels (P=0.056), and no statistically significant differences were observed in TC and HDL-C levels (in females) (P>0.1).

The interaction effect between input mode and text difficulty was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.81, p = 0.056, indicating that in general, insertions made by the dictation group were more sensitive to text difficulty than those made by the typing group. 4.3.2.