“marginally significant”

The linear term of the hourly price remained marginally significant (price: b = −9.02e-4, SE = 4.74e-4, t (2414) = −1.90, p = .057), but the quadratic term became insignificant (price 2 : b = −1.19e-5, SE = 1.70e-5, t (2414) = −0.70, p = .483).

The total indirect effect was marginally significant (β = 0.845, 95% CI [−0.025, 1.715], p = .057).

001, η 2 p = .86, and a marginally significant effect of Action-effect mapping, F (1, 38) = 3.87, p = .057, η 2 p = .092, but the interaction between these two factors was not significant, F (4, 152) = 1.39, p = .24, η 2 p = .035.

Type 2 diabetes status was marginally significant (p = 0.0570).

Only a marginally significant main effect of prime color was found F (5, 50) = 2.32, p = 0.057, observed 1−β = .697.

Although our ability to run some higher-order multiple regressions was limited by our sample sizes, the effect of stimulus type was marginally significant in a single fixed effect model ( F 2,22 = 3.278, P = 0.057) and may interact with other effects.

On the other hand, differences in lnHF power were marginally significant ( p = .057) as the lnHF power of the low anxiety group was slightly higher than the lnHF power of the high anxiety group.All psychological variables and cardiac measures showed a normal-like distribution.

A marginally significant main effect of Emotion (F(4, 88) = 2.67, p = .057) was found, indicating waveform differences between the different sentences.

The PLS analysis for the matched sample ( Figure 3 ) revealed that, the first LV explained 66.55% of the covariance and was marginally significant ( p = 0.057).

However, this decrease was marginally significant (Fig. 6C , upper panel, p = 0.057 ).

A marginally significant 3-way interaction was found between time, condition, and group; F (1,19) = 4.09, p = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.18.

Wife’s age at time of marriage, on the other hand, was a marginally significant, negative predictor of marriage duration (Wald’s χ 2 = 3.62, df = 1, p = 0.057).

Post hoc pairwise comparisons (Bonfferoni-Holmes corrected) revealed significant difference between FB and TB condition: t = −3.18, p = 0.007, marginally significant difference between FB and TB modified conditions: t = −2.25, p = 0.057, and no significant difference between TB and TB modified conditions: t = 0.93, p = 0.36 ( Figure 2 ).

But the difference in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was marginally significant ( p = 0.057).

In terms of clarity, they appeared to be slightly more positive towards the interaction with the CT ( M = 4.85, SD = 0.34) compared to the RT ( M = 4.45, SD = 0.37) (see Figure 4A ); however, statistically, these findings were marginally significant with a moderate effect size ( Z = −1.903, p = 0.057, r = −0.43).

Examination of release probability showed a marginally significant impact of remifentanil treatment on paired-pulse ratio at D1 PL-Core synapses [ ISI x Treatment : F (1.31, 52.28) = 3.485, p = 0.057].

In the 450 ms delay condition, there was a marginally significant effect, t 26 = 1.992, p = 0.057.

For the auditory-target condition, the effect was marginally significant (mean ρ = −0.062, p = 0.057), suggesting a possibility that the correlation between the pupil derivative and SRTs reflects a more general, supramodal effect of pupil-linked arousal on SRT.

The correlation between FSH and body mass index or antihypertensive drug usage was marginally significant ( P = 0.057; P = 0.066, respectively).

Moreover, we detected that the group main effect was marginally significant ( F 1,36 = 3.85, P = 0.057).

5F ) scores and had a marginally significant association with TMT‐B scores ( rho = 0.316, p = 0.057; q FDR >0.05; Fig. 5E ) in ICH patients.

Following a similar trend, the correlation difference between rS-pS and rU-pU groups was also found to be marginally significant ( p = 0.057) in tumors compared to non-tumor tissues ( Supplementary Figure 4E ).

For ascending FI gain, the overall correlation across all MNs was marginally significant ( p = 0.057, black trace in Figure 5A and Supplementary Table 2 ); however, a significant positive correlation was observed specifically in male MNs ( p = 0.049, blue trace in Figure 5A and Supplementary Table 2 ).

In addition, the interaction between orientation and grouping cue was marginally significant, F (1, 54) = 3.78, p = .057, with better part judgments in the ungrouped than in the grouped context for upright ( p = .01), but not for inverted ( p = .85), faces.

Also as expected, among participants high on national identification, we found a marginally significant interaction between self-esteem and mortality salience, β = −0.21, t (166) = −1.91, p = 0.057, 95% CI [−0.43, 0.01].