“marginally significant”

The interaction of the two factors was marginally significant for the latency of N2 component [ F (4,76) = 2.729, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.126].

For CRP, excluding the single highly influential subject produced a substantially smaller estimated PM2.5 effect that was marginally significant (p = 0.06).

Vessel density, vessel grouping index, and fiber thickness contributed significantly to PC1 (loadings > ±0.6; p < 0.05), whereas hydraulic vessel diameter showed a marginally significant contribution (loading = 0.56; p = 0.06; Table S1 ).

For late GU toxicity, the only predictor for grade 1–2 toxicity that was marginally significant was bladder D1% ( p = 0.06) and for grade 3–4 toxicity, bladder D15cc ( p = 0.09) in UVA.

In line with the Experiment 1, the positive correlation between valence and accuracy was marginally significant (ρ valence, accuracy · arousal = 0.19, p = 0.06) when the effect of arousal was controlled.

The 2.5-fold difference between exclusively formula-fed infants and infants fed both breast milk and formula was marginally significant (β = 0.94; 95% CI: –0.04, 1.91; p = 0.06).

They also found – although marginally significant - decreased ERN (p = 0.06) in BDs when compared with controls, indicating that the electrophysiological alterations observed in the previous study probably are common markers of BD and not gender specific.

The Group × Sex interaction effect on FFM of the Right Arm was marginally significant ( F (1,71) = 3.71, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.05), suggesting a potential moderating role of sex in the observed effect.

There was a marginally significant association among treatment categories and satisfaction of the patient with TB (p = 0.06).

We found a marginally significant main effect (β = 0.16, SE = 0.09, p = 0.06): mothers who spent more time engaging in maternal behaviors also had higher levels of baseline cortisol over weeks 1 and 2.

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 ).

A 2 (type of alternative: cognitive/affective) × 2 (decision condition: distraction/immediate) mixed ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction [ F (1, 118) = 3.56, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.03].

Preliminary Analyses Parental background variables (i.e., parents’ age and education at the time of their child’s birth) and adolescent background variables (i.e., age at the adolescence assessment and intelligence scores measured at 13.5 years of age) did not correlate with any of the dependent variables, r s < 0.20, p s > 0.15, except for mother’s years of education, which had a marginally significant correlation with adolescents’ N2 amplitude at age 17 years, r = −0.25, p = 0.06; therefore, it was controlled in further analyses.

A Mantel test showed a positive correlation between the genetic differentiations (F ST ) and the linearized geographic distances with a marginally significant statistical support (Euclidean distance; r = 0.3, p = 0.06; Figure 2 ).

On page 5 the authors report “...a marginally significant difference in competence between black and white (-11.52, p = .06)”.

Likewise, after controlling for object-level performance (proportion correct), the AQ score × gamma correlation in Experiment 2 was non-significant when using a two-tailed test, rs (17) = − .37, p = .12, but marginally significant when using a one-tailed test, p = .06.

The frontal positivity in Declinations was marginally significant relative to Pre-offers at the anterior medial region from 500 to 600 ms ( p = .06).

The results showed that the difference in the inverse efficiency score between English and Chinese words was marginally significant ( t (22) = −1.94, p = .06).

For the 600–800 ms time window, a positive cluster over the left-frontal electrodes was marginally significant (cluster p = 0.06, electrodes Fp1, F7, F3, and FC5).

Only one edge involving child irritability was marginally significant ( p = .06) between groups, i.e., the partial correlation from irritability to neglect between Black (not stable/included in the bootstrapped network) and White (estimate = 0.31) participants.

Younger patients (age <65) could get marginally significant OS benefit rather than PFS benefit from ICIs (univariate: HR 1.526, P=0.060; multivariate: HR 1.593, P=0.050).

The main effect of outcome frequency (50% and 80% error rate conditions) was marginally significant ( F 1, 23 = 3.91, p = 0.06), showing that slower RT in the 50% (840 ± 20 ms) than in the 80% (833 ± 20 ms) error rate condition.

We also observed significant difference between early exposure and controllable ( z = −2.13, p = 0.017) and a marginally significant difference between late exposure and uncontrollable ( z = 1.55, p = 0.06) phases.

There was a marginally significant validity/practice hours interaction, F (1,18) = 3.95, P = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.18, so that RT differences between valid and invalid trials decreased as hours of practice increased.

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant interaction effect of group x phobia relevance, F (1,106) = 3.67, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.03.