“marginally significant”

The analysis indicated a marginally significant effect of group, with AVGs showing a subtle advantage for detecting T1 [ F (1, 56) = 3.76, p = 0.058].

Post Assessments The ANOVA revealed significant main effects for Moments for RMSSD (F 1, 20 = 5.77; p = 0.026, η p 2 = 0.22; op = 0.63) and SD1 (F 1, 20 = 5.78; p = 0.026, η p 2 = 0.22; op = 0.63), and a marginally significant effect, but with a large effect size for Mean RR (F 1, 20 = 4.06; p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.17; op = 0.48), which shows an increase in RMSSD and SD1 at rest from pre (34.9 ms and 24.7, respectively) to post intervention (47.5 ms and 33.6) in both sequences. 3.3.

The mixed effects model testing the affective pathway hypothesis showed that, after accounting for autocorrelation, between‐person negative affect significantly predicted psychotic experiences ( b = 0.42, SE = 0.10, p < .001), and momentary negative affect was a marginally significant predictor ( b = 0.17, SE = 0.09, p = .058).

Follow-up two-tailed t -tests (α = 0.025) revealed a marginally significant effect of PERTURBATION for sentences, t (1,13) = 2.077 , p = 0.058, Cohen’s d = 0.555, and no effect of PERTURBATION for lists, t (1,13) = 0.668 , p = 0.516, Cohen’s d = 0.169.

Following a period OFF-stimulation, the Y-BOCS score lowered by 4.52 ± 1.73 [95% CI = (−7.90, −0.67)], constituting a marginally significant change ( t = −2.60, p = 0.0580).

For the mask defined of >90% intensity of the peak (comprising only 7.7 ± 9.6 mm 3 ), the correlation was marginally significant ( p = 0.058).

However, a marginally significant interaction between race and fitness level (p = 0.058) was noted, with RD children demonstrating a trend toward larger effect of fitness on inflammation than NHW children.

An analysis of the study groups according to gender showed a marginally significant difference between the CAD and the control group for the BsmI and Taq1 VDR polymorphism genotype frequency in males ( χ 2 test, p = 0.058 and χ 2 test, p = 0.063, respectively (Additional file 1 : Table S10).

The correlation between the mean AD in the left ILF and IES of the Mandarin visual rhyming judgment task within bilinguals was marginally significant with p = 0.058 (see Supplementary Table 1 ).

In addition, a marginally significant negative trend between cord serum MBP and cord serum TSH (R = 0.25, p = 0.058), and cord serum MBP and cord serum T 4 (R = 0.23, p = 0.092) was observed ( Table 4 ).

We also found a marginally significant interaction between Age Group, Incentive Valence, and Incentive Magnitude ( F (2,101) = 2.92, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.06).

In this regard, there was a marginally significant sex difference ( P= 0.058; two-tailed Fisher’s exact test), with men being more opposed than women to the community setting separate from where a community-based support group is held.

Only the difference between frequently and rarely-recombining autosomal genes was marginally significant (chi 2 = 3.595; P = 0.0580) for the number of genes that evolved significantly different expression in the two species.

Furthermore, using the SPSS macro PROCESS 30 to analyze the total sample (adjusting for age and gender), NPY genotypes had a significant main effect on HF ( B = 0.10, SE = 0.04, t = 2.45, p = 0.014) and a marginally significant effect on RMSSD ( B = 0.04, SE = 0.02, t = 1.90, p = 0.058), but PSS scores were not.

Meanwhile, there was a marginally significant difference between the participants’ risk-seeking index in the L-SRP/class comparison and the L-SRP/school comparison, t (66) = 1.930, p = 0.058.

After accounting for the influences of the pre-exposure covariates, causal mediation analysis using the IOW approach showed that SHS exposure at home had a non-significant NDE (OR NDE =1.40; 95% CI: 0.90–2.17, p=0.133), marginally significant NIE (OR NIE =1.12; 95% CI: 1.00–1.26, p=0.058) jointly mediated through asthma and self-reported smoking status with a proportion of 29.6% mediated effect on the likelihood of atopic dermatitis ( Table 2 ).

Analysis adjustment by age showed that the patients with presence of G/G genotype for the rs3826392 variant have a protective effect for TNM III+IV stages (OR=0.45; 95% CI=0.23-0.87, P =0.027); while, individuals with the T/T genotype for the rs3809728 variant, have a marginally significant difference for TNM III+IV stages (OR=2.28; 95% CI=1.03- 5.03, P =0.058) ( Table 4 ).

An analysis of extracted signal change from these voxels showed greater activity on near-misses compared to full-misses on participant-chosen trials (t 14 = 3.37, p = 0.005), with a marginally significant effect in the opposite direction on computer-chosen trials (t 14 = −2.06, p = 0.058; see Figure 4 ).

For men, when the model is run this way there is a positive significant effect of older sisters, younger brothers, and a marginally significant for younger sisters (p = 0.058), but no significant effect of older brothers.

e regression-estimated change was 0.01 percentage points; P = 0.617; see Model 2), iii) had no significant impact on whether a borrower made at least one, on-time payment (the regression-estimated change was −0.02 percentage points; P = 0.530, see Model 3), and iv) decreased 60-d delinquencies by a marginally significant 0.05 percentage points ( P = 0.058; see Model 4).

Additionally, a marginally significant group × time interaction was observed in the P1 amplitude ( χ 2 (4) = 3.602, p = 0.058, B = 1.137; Fig. 5 B-C).

Relationships of drought-tolerance diversity with community stability were weak: We found a marginally significant positive effect of functional diversity of stomatal control on community stability ( t = 1.92, P = 0.058) but no significant relationship with functional diversity of resistance-acquisition ( t = 1.12, P = 0.27; fig.

However, a marginally significant difference in RTs between the two groups for disengaging by conflict [ F (1,56) = 3.734, p = 0.058, ω 2 = 0.044], suggesting that the effects tend to be lower for AVGPs (15.52 ± 51.68) than for NAVGPs (47.49 ± 57.09) 2 , although the effect size was relatively small.

Another ANOVA on (corrected) slope values of finger judgments revealed a marginally significant interaction between instruction and rectangle size, F (1, 46) = 3.78, p = .058, η p 2 = .076 (other p > .705; see gray bars in Fig. 2B ).

Similarly, in the visual recognition task of the WMS, with a Linear Mixed Model with clinical diagnosis as the factor and age as the covariate, we found that the patients had a marginally worse performance than the control group [ F (1, 58) = 3.77, p = 0.057], and age was also marginally significant [ F (58) = 3.75, p = 0.058; Figure 3B ].