“marginally significant”

Interestingly, although BMI was marginally significant ( p = 0.06), it was not related to the desire for a bigger shape among boys.

Number was marginally significant with higher scores for singular objects (0.97) than for plural ones (0.91; β = -1.180, z = -1.863, p = 0.06).

Although marginally significant ( P = 0.06), the random sample initiated smoking later than the convenience sample.

Results of the analyses on latency showed a significant difference between long-time priming ( M = 744 ms) and short-time priming ( M = 673 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 46.10, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.56, F 2 (1,22) = 30.91, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.58, and a marginally significant, but unreliable 17-ms, difference between long-time concepts ( M = 717 ms) and short-time concepts ( M = 700 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 3.81, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, F 2 (1,22) < 1, ns.

sH1N1 FluoroSpot revealed no significant changes in IFNγ SFCs after either dose of vaccine ( Fig 3C ), but exhibited a marginally significant increase in GrB SFCs post-dose 1 (p = 0.06; Fig 3D ).

Haplotype TAGCGT of block rs9525641-rs2277439-rs2324851-rs2875459-rs2200287-rs9533166 of TNFSF11 showed marginally significant association with AAM ( P = 0.06).

Exploratory correlational analyses concerning the different facets of worry (duration and intensity) showed that the association between AddHRVr and worry intensity was marginally significant ( r (30) = .33, p = .06), but the association between AddHRVr and worry duration was not significant ( r (30) = .27, p = .13).

The effect was marginally significant (F (2, 39) = 2.92, p = 0.06, η 2 PARTIAL = 0.136) with participants in the deviant condition reporting significantly (Sidak post-hoc test) higher SBP levels (M = 111.5) than the two normative conditions (respectively: M(normative1) = 109.2; M(normative2) = 108.2).

The correlation coefficient for the Dutch elderly population was marginally significant (ρ = -0.40, p-value = 0.06).

In contrast, the DMPFC sub-network showed a marginally significant de-activation ( F (1,17) = 4.1, p = 0.06).

ANOVA also revealed marginally significant interaction between self-referential type and caudality [ F (8,136) = 2.78, p = 0.06].

Quality of life A marginally significant increase in AQoL-8D utility scores was observed within groups over time (F (2,30) = 3.099, p = 0.060, η 2 = 0.171).

A marginally significant association was found between foreign nationality and low SES (χ 2 (1) = 3.573, p = .06).

The effect of Domain was marginally significant ( F (1,96) = 3.6, P = .06); post hoc analysis showed a tendency to better naming of the NLT with respect to the LT ( M = 44% versus M = 32%, for NLT and LT, resp.).

A three-factorial ANOVA with PL, RL, and OTL as between-subjects factors revealed a main effect of PL, F (1,145) = 15.78, p < 0.01, MSe = 30491, η 2 = 0.10 ( M = 89 ms for low PL and M = 201 ms for high PL), and a marginally significant effect of RL, F (1,145) = 3.63, p = 0.06, MSe = 30491, η 2 = 0.02 ( M = 118 ms for low RL and M = 172 ms for high RL).

Rectal primary cancer was marginally significant ( p =0.06, hazard ratio (HR)=0.988-2.318), and incomplete surgical resection for metastatic lesions was most significant ( p =0.003, HR=1.477-6.441) for predicting poor outcomes in concomitant liver and lung metastasis from colorectal cancer ( Table 3 ).

But the searching slope for Chinese subjects was steeper than that for Black subjects, with a marginally significant interaction of Set size and Race of participant, F (2, 82) = 2.93, p = .06, η p 2 = .07.

4 , 5 , 6 Importantly, there was a marginally significant three-way interaction between veracity, being forewarned, and time, b = –0.001, F (1,154.001) = 3.598, p = 0.060, and, also a marginally significant interaction between veracity and being forewarned, b = –0.165, F (1,153.534) = 3.461, p = 0.065 (see Figure 1 ).

For incident CKD, every category that included HTN and/or T2DM showed significant risk; this risk was marginally significant for the PreDM/HTN group (1.19 [0.98–1.43], P =0.06).

The parents exhibited more-vigilant behaviour in the nest-box with an enlarged entrance (2.07 ± 0.41%) than in that with a control entrance (0.90 ± 0.41%), but this was marginally significant (mixed model, nest F 1,20.1 = 4.12, P = 0.06; playback F 1,21.3 = 0.28, P = 0.60; nest × playback F 1,20.9 = 2.93, P = 0.10; temperature F 1,36.0 = 2.05, P = 0.16; brood F 1,20.5 = 0.88, P = 0.36; Fig. 2b ).

Across both groups, dorsal striatal D2R BP ND was greater than ventral striatal BP ND at a marginally significant level (dorsal mean BP ND = 4.09, S.D. = 0.52; ventral mean BP ND = 2.08, S.D. = 0.29; F 1,33 = 3.87, p = 0.06) and there was no significant interaction between group and striatal region ( F 1,33 = 1.98, p = 0.17).

For ARI, care seeking from a recommended provider (a health facility) was significantly lower in the third (OR = 0.08, P = 0.004) and fourth (OR = 0.07, P = 0.01) quartiles in the univariable model, marginally lower in the fourth quartile (AOR = 0.05, P = 0.05) in the full model, and marginally significant for trend across distance quartiles ( P = 0.06).

Pairwise comparison of groups (Wilcoxon tests with Holm correction) revealed that the difference attributed to Picraminaceae was significant ( p -value ≪0.05) or marginally significant ( p -value = 0.06) with an exception of Aronia ( p -value = 0.20).

The main effect of disease stage was significant for ONLT ( P = 0.04), marginally significant for NFLT and OPLT ( P = 0.06), and not statistically significant for INLT, ONLT, OSLT, RPET, and OSCT ( P ≥ 0.2).

More interestingly, the Proposed solution x Group interaction was marginally significant [ F (1.32) = 3.69, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0 . 10 ].