“marginally significant”

The results confirmed that social anxiety exerted a marginally significant main effect on the women’s willingness to embrace attractiveness-enhancement risks ( F (1, 136) = 3.72, p = 0.056, η 2 p = 0.027).

However, the residuals of the raw model were not normally distributed, and the effect of aridity change became marginally significant in the cubic root–transformed model (MLE = 0.504, P = 0.056; table S6).

For younger adults, the group × occasion interaction was significant for the parcels of numerical tasks, F (1,143) = 7.48, P = 0.007, d = 0.33, and figural-spatial tasks, F (1,143) = 7.84, P = 0.006, d = 0.38, and marginally significant for the Raven, F (1,142) = 3.73, P = 0.056, d = 0.33.

However, there was a marginally significant difference between the first and second mapping, t (28) = 2.00, p = 0.056, d = 0.371, suggesting that children used MEB to a lesser degree on the second mapping.

Differences in g s were marginally significant among species ( F 3,19 = 3.11, P = 0.056, Fig. 2 B), with L. clavatum and to a lesser extent S. annotinum exhibiting higher g s .

In terms of beta diversity, the change of the beta diversity metric from the beginning to the end of the shift among the pooled workers was marginally significant or significant (main effect of time p = 0.056 by PERMANOVA for Bray-Curtis and 0.014 for Jaccard).

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).

The genotype of the subjects coincided with differences in the GFAP levels, and this effect was marginally significant with ache mutants having downregulated GFAP levels as an overall trend ( F (1, 20) = 4.111, p = 0.056; Fig. 3 c).

(2015) found that the perceived sensations during sham and real tRNS conditions were indistinguishable, whereas the difference between anodal tDCS and sham was marginally significant ( p = 0.056).

A marginally significant interaction between caregiver speech proportion and session ( OR = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 1.04], t = −1.91, p = .056) suggested a trend toward weaker caregiver–child matching in Session B compared to Session A.

The fractional anisotropy (FA) of the right FAT also showed a marginally significant correlation in the Picture Vocabulary Test ( p = .056).

However, the difference between schizophrenic and healthy control regarding head circumference was marginally significant (p = 0.056).

In alertness after the stimulation, there was a marginally significant difference between the sessions [Χ 2 (2) = 5.77, p = 0.056].

RTRs who were nonobese but had metabolic abnormalities demonstrated a marginally significant increase in the risk of MASLD compared with those in the MHNO group, with an OR of 2.74 ( p = 0.056).

Beta diversity through NMDS revealed no separation between contact lens wearers and control in females; however, there was a marginally significant difference in the male subgroup ( P = 0.056, F = 2.68, R 2 = 0.13; Fig. 4B ), suggesting a possible effect at the 10% significance level.

The similarity between predicted and observed standard deviations was furthermore indicated by significant correlations ( p -values < 0.035) ranging between 0.60 and 0.92, and one marginally significant correlation ( r = 0.56; p = 0.056) for BiHand trials in condition Dyn .

Personal Event Mann–Whitney U -tests on free recall performance revealed significant differences for two periods: recent past ( z = 2.93, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.25), near future ( z = 2.41, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.18) and a marginally significant effect for the distant future ( z = 1.95, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.11).

There were also significant effects of crop species on the activities of BG and BX (Table 1 ) and the effect of crop species on CBH was marginally significant (P = 0.056; Table 1 ).

For the 12-month-old infants significant changes in RTP as a function of time occurred for the Non-native stimuli only, indicated by the marginally significant Window × Language interaction, F (2, 20) = 3.46, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.26.

Of all the parameters, the correlation between EMG slope at tapping onset in slow tapping and the hemibody bradykinesia and rigidity scores was marginally significant (ρ = −0.55, P = 0.056, FDR corrected).

Specifically, the main effect of the PIS significantly improved trust in COVID‐19 vaccine‐related information ( F (1, 323) = 4.39, p = .037), and the reduction in COVID‐19 vaccine safety‐related worry was marginally significant ( F (1, 323) = 3.68, p = .056).

Susceptibility to ciprofloxacin demonstrated a significant negative trend over the quarters (slope = 0.0262, R-squared = 0.3967, p = 0.05), while cotrimoxazole also exhibited a marginally significant negative trend (slope = −0.0119, R-squared = 0.3832, p = 0.056).

During extinction, the difference between CS + compared with CS – stimuli was still significant in the left BNST ( F (1,78) = 4.45, p = 0.038, η P 2 = 0.05), and marginally significant in the right BNST ( F (1,78) = 3.76, p = 0.056, η P 2 = 0.05).

Hb concentration gradually decreased by eight weeks ( p <0.001), and the difference for infants weighing 1000 g was marginally significant in consideration of group x factor interaction ( p =0.056) ( Fig. 1 ).

In YRI, the MBB indicates marginally significant signals at FOXP2 exons 4–8 ( P = 0.056).