“marginally significant”

However, only a marginally significant effect on the interaction of risk feedback and emotion regulation to predict selective exposure was found ( b = 0.49; p = 0.06; R 2 change when adding the moderator = 0.004; see Table 2 ), and the main effect of risk feedback that was found before disappeared when including the interaction term.

However, binary logistic regressions revealed a marginally significant effect of individual's power on their choice of robotic versus non-robotic airport check-in service (B = 0.67, p = .06).

The beverage × trial position interaction on post‐error theta was marginally significant, F (1, 84) = 3.69 p < 0.06, while neither beverage nor trial position had significant main effects.

Pre-Differences The multivariate comparison of all 3 physiological variables at t 1 revealed marginally significant differences between IG and CG at the teaching interval (i1; P = .06) and the task under time pressure (i3; P = .07).

1.534 ± 0.363); however, the pattern was reversed, that is, the SD group showed marginally significant increased left DMPFC activation when making effortful choices for others ( F (1, 61) = 3.58, p = .060, η 2 p = 0.055; 1.183 ± 0.333 vs. 0.271 ± 0.349).

A similar model was tested for MDD (R 2 = 0.76, F [7,85] = 16.66, p < 0.001) showed a marginally significant effect for the non-acceptance index (β = 0.18, p = 0.06) and for the FIQR total score (β = 0.19, p < 0.001).

The Trees & Bio group saw a marginally significant improvement over the No GI group ( p = 0.06).

Although the SSD patients with deafness durations <3 years had lower average PTA both for deaf ears ( t = −3.25, p = 0.002) and for normal ears ( t = −2.03, p = 0.048) than SSD patients with longer deafness durations, SSD patients with longer deafness durations showed a significant reduction in RMS error ( t = −2.49, p = 0.018), a marginally significant reduction in the SIN threshold ( t = −1.95, p = 0.060), and a marginally significant increase in ASL ( t = 1.97, p = 0.057) than SSD patients with deafness durations of <3 years (see Figure 1A ).

For married women, age was a powerful predictor of average quality satisfaction, with those in their 20s (.45, p < .05) and 30s (.55, p < .001) reporting significantly higher levels than the reference group in their 50s. Very few other factors predicted average quality satisfaction for women, save marginally significant effects for Evangelical Protestants (.35, p = .06) and strong Democrats (−.30, p = .07).

Similar to maternal influences, paternal behavioral control also served as a negative predictor of adolescent Internet addiction ( β = −0.20, p < 0.001, Cohen's f 2 = 0.04), while paternal psychological control showed a marginally significant positive prediction ( β = 0.04, p = 0.06, Cohen's f 2 = 0.002, see Table 2 ).

The model also showed a marginally significant positive effect of the proportion of substance use groups on the risk of a use episode ( P =.06).

Importantly, the tendency for girls to show greater fatigue than boys, as indicated by the large effect sizes in all fatigue indices ( Table 1 ) and the marginally significant p value of the main effect of sex ( p = 0.06), may imply a lower fitness level, which unfortunately could not be quantified in the present study.

A marginally significant effect of dose was found [ F (1,85) = 3.57, p = 0.06]. 4.

Next, a Mann–Whitney U test on posttest length shows a marginally significant difference between the two HNU conditions ( U = 495, p = .06) with the Adaptive condition ( Mean = 39, SD = 8) forming marginally significantly shorter proofs than the Control ( Mean = 44, SD = 12), and a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = .49).

There was a marginally significant change in fruit intake (g) between the two groups (t = −1.88, p = 0.06, ƒ 2 = 0.02).

Higher maternal education had a marginally significant association with lower AOSI scores [ t (37) = −1.97, p = 0.06].

In terms of FXAND, 20 PM allele carriers (66.7%) were diagnosed with depression, with the likelihood of depression being significantly reduced for carriers of PM alleles with greater AR-Sb ( p = 0.02, Figure 4 a) or marginally significant for carriers of PM alleles with higher AR-mPCR ( p = 0.06, 335 Figure 4 b).

Correlation analysis showed a positive albeit marginally significant association between workload and JA ( r = 0.17, p = 0.06), whereas zero-order correlations between log cortisol/DHEA(S) ratio and workload ( r = 0.07, p = 0.46) or JA ( r = 0.10, p = 0.28) were not significant.

11 Also, that study reported lower reading scores for those born at 39 weeks than those born at 40 weeks, although the difference was marginally significant ( P = .06).

The changes observed in the present study were marginally significant and of moderate effect size ( p = 0.06: d = 0.5), which may have been due to dropout rate and decreased power during the 1-week assessment.

In terms of the direct paths from reading conditions to the outcome, there was a marginally significant direct path from Agent non‐DR to the story comprehension score ( β = −0.34, p = .06), suggesting that children in the Agent non‐DR condition may have had lower learning performance compared to those in the Agent DR condition while controlling for irrelevant and relevant vocalization mediators and other covariates.

The RTs between neutral-distractor and no-distractor showed a marginally significant difference ( t = 2.19, p = .06, all p value corrected by Holm method).This results suggested that participants’ attention was captured more in reward-distractor than in loss-distractor and neutral-distractor condition, see Fig. 2A .

Moreover, a marginally significant effect of the rs1799889 variant on TG (SMD = –0.09, 95% CI = –0.17 to 0.00, P = 0.06) and HDL-C [SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = –0.02 to 0.31, P = 0.09; Figure 5 ] levels was observed in the Asian population ( Table 1 ).

There were no significant correlations between the three drought tolerance metrics at either the individual plant level (there was a marginally significant correlation at the individual level between the SL and G min , p = 0.06) or at the plot level (i.e., CWMs) ( Table 3 ; Figure 3 ).

Results After the adjustment for potential confounders, a marginally significant association was found between DII and MetS (OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 0.93–4.82; P = 0.06).