“marginally significant”

We showed a significant difference in the probability distribution between iTBS-L DLPFC and cTBS-L DLPFC (Wald–Wolfowitz test, P = 0.03) with a marginally significant difference between cTBS-L DLPFC and cTBS-R DLPFC ( P = 0.06).

During gliding segments, juveniles experienced marginally significant lower wind support (adults: 0.45 ± 0.35, juveniles: 0.03 ± 0.04; U = 41, P = 0.06) and similar side-wind (adults: 0.32 ± 0.17, juveniles: −0.01 ± 0.03; U = 39, P = 0.76).

There was a marginally significant association between food insecurity and clinically elevated HbA1C (> = 5·7 %) (OR 1·61, 95 % CI 1·10, 2·36, P = 0·06), and the overall trend for greater severity of food insecurity and clinically elevated HbA1C was statistically significant ( P = 0·01) for Model 1, adjusting for age and sex.

Yellow males obtained significantly more copulations after winning against blue males (Wilcoxon matched paired test, z = 2.67, n = 15, P < 0.01) and marginally significant after winning against immaculata males (Wilcoxon matched paired test, z = 1.83, n = 10, P = 0.06).

The difference in these linear trends was marginally significant ( P = .06).

However, the effect appeared to be stronger at lower annual rainfall as evidenced by a marginally significant (p = 0.06) effect of the interaction between shrub microsite and rainfall on mean E . elymoides cover ( Table 1 ; Fig 3b ).

2nd, t (19) = −4.25, p < 0.001, and marginally significant between 1st vs. 4th, t (19) = −1.93, p = 0.06; the differences in negative mood were significant between 1st vs. 2nd, t (19) = 3.04, p < 0.01, and between 1st vs. 4th, t (19) = 4.65, p < 0.001; the differences in neutral mood were not significant between 1st vs. 2nd, t (19) = 1.51, p > 0.1, and between 1st vs. 4th, t (19) = 1.32, p > 0.1.

We observed a positive relationship of ungulate prey biomass with distance to settlements ( r = 0.71; P < 0.001; HDI 95 = 0.61 to 0.79; Fig 3A ) and distance to roads ( r = 0.34; P < 0.001; HDI 95 = 0.21 to 0.48; Fig 3B ), and a marginally significant relationship with access to rivers ( r = 0.19; P = 0.06, HDI 95 = 0.02 to 0.33; Fig 3C ).

Moreover, a significant reduction in visceral fat ( p = 0.01) and a marginally significant decrease in BMI ( p = 0.06) were observed in the DASH group compared to the control group after adjusting for potential confounders.

A marginally significant difference in the concentration of 5-HIAA [ F (2, 31) = 2.987, p = 0.06] was detected among the three groups.

There was a marginally significant difference for gestation length ( P = 0.06), such that heifers in the MUD treatment calved approximately 3.1 days before the heifers in the CON treatment.

ANOVA revealed a significant effect of pharmacological treatment (F (1,23) = 4.18, p < 0.05) and a marginally significant effect of stress (F (1,23) = 3.77, p = 0.06) at the 24 h time point.

Baseline lymphopenia was marginally significant for worse PFS (HR 1.22; P = .06), while male patients (HR 1.27; P = .01), biopsy only (HR 1.33), and lower MMSE patients had significantly worse PFS.

The results of the hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one, parental distress contributed marginally significant to the regression model ( B = − 0.13, SE = 0.07, β = − 0.23, p = 0.06).

A repeated measure analysis (ANOVA) with amount of coins (two levels: 10/0 versus 8/0) as a within-subjects factor and age group (five levels) as a between-subjects factor yielded the expected main effect of amount of coins [ F (1, 88) = 80.09, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant main effect of age [ F (4, 88) = 2.35, p = 0.06].

The results were considered statistically significant for P < 0.05 and marginally significant at P < 0.06.

The results departed remarkably from the negative correlation of −0.50 reported for the inhibitory task: the correlation was positive and marginally significant ( N = 17, r = 0.47, p = 0.06).

Age was marginally significant ( β = −0.12, p = 0.060), suggesting a trend toward reduced distress with age.

Results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between conditions in perceived efficacy [F(1,148) = .12, p = .73] and a marginally significant difference between the groups in perceived threat [F(1,148) = 3.65, p = .06].

The directions of effect for mental work demands, physical work demands, and the interaction term were the same as in the main analysis, though the interaction term became marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

This model was marginally significant, F (3,75) = 2.54, r 2 adj = 0.06, p = 0.06, driven by a significant association with declarative memory, but not procedural memory, after controlling for site (see Table 3B for parameter estimates).

However, the amount of temporary shoreline was marginally significant (F 1,13 = 5.00, p = 0.06) in 2010.

The Poisson mixed model exploring the number of central details recalled 1 week after encoding revealed a marginally significant main effect of age group ( β = 0.21, SE = 0.11, χ 2 (1) = 3.55, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.43], p = 0.06), with a tendency of young adults reporting more central details than older adults, and a main effect of recall type ( β = − 0.61, SE = 0.04, χ 2 (1) = 184.10, 95% CI [− 0.69, − 0.52], p < 0.001; See Table 2 for mean values), with participants recalling more central details for videos recalled multiple times than only once.

Larval dry weight: wet weight was significantly affected by CO 2 (p = 0.003, F 2 = 1.66) and the interaction between CO 2 and tide was marginally significant (p = 0.060, F 4 = 2.26).

The association between willingness for future training and membership in the advanced group decreased from significant ( p = 0.048) to marginally significant ( p < 0.06), while its association with the transitional group remained significant ( p < 0.05).