“marginally significant”

Regressing power, ad (dummy-coded), their interaction, and age and gender on purchase intention revealed a marginally significant effect of age ( β = − .01, t (187) = − 1.92, p = .06, semipartial correlation = − .14), and more importantly, a significant interaction of power × ad ( β = .39, t (187) = 2.10, p = .04, semipartial correlation = .143; see Fig. 1 ).

Post hoc pairwise comparison performed with Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction revealed that the ITD threshold increased when the modulation depth in one ear was reduced to 71%, and this reduction was marginally significant (t= -2.37, p= 0.06).

Duration of breastfeeding was no longer significant in country-constrained PERMANOVA after FDR correction; however, it was a marginally significant factor in CAR alone (FDR-adjusted p = 0.06).

There was a marginally significant main effect of compatibility [ F (1,132) = 3.51, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.02], indicating more correctly solved items per second for compatible ( M = 1.06, SD = 0.28) as compared to incompatible number pairs ( M = 0.93, SD = 0.27).

A 3 (Group: 3 mo, 15 mo, 22 mo) × Time Period (CS, ITI, Post-CS) ANOVA conducted to assess responding during this session found a main effect of time period, F (2, 34) = 6.46, MSE = 1067.50, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.28, a marginally significant interaction, F (3, 34) = 2.57, MSE = 1067.50, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.23, and no effect of group, F = 1.86, p = 0.19, despite a clear visual trend showing decreased freezing in middle-aged and old animals.

The HE-RFI group showed marginally significant higher values for NDF and NFC digestibility (g/kg), ( P = 0.06 and 0.08, respectively).

Significant association was found in CMT, EZ disruption, DRIL, and ELM disruption ( Table 2 ). Marginally significant association was found in deep parafoveal VD ( p = 0.06).

Team based programmes were associated with a marginally significant decrease in abstinence at 12 months of 4.3 points relative to individual programmes (95% confidence interval −8.8 to 0.2, P=0.06), and $40 bonus programmes increased abstinence by 8.5 points relative to no bonus programmes (2.8 to 14.1, P=0.003).

However, for conventional affective arousal index Aff(Ar.c) , the session × group interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 36) = 3.77, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.10).

We report significant ( P ≤ 0.05) and marginally significant (0.05 < P ≤ 0.06) effects of the models sequentially as the sentence unfolds over time.

However, there was a marginally significant correlation between the non-DM ( P = 0.06) and non-smoking subgroups ( P = 0.06). 4 Discussion We have demonstrated that LDL-C/HDL-C and TC/HDL-C could be independent factors for predicting the presence of TCFA which means plaque vulnerability in CAD patients.

A favorable pathological response showed marginally significant and no association with DSS and OS ( p = 0.06 and p = 0.2), respectively.

When examining fatty acids individually, docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) levels were significantly decreased ( p = 0.03), and the decrease in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) levels was marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

There was also a marginally significant association between AKI development and invasive mechanical ventilation ( p = 0.06); also, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation significantly differed across the stages of AKI ( p = 0.003) ( Table 5 ). 4.

The model yielded a significant main effect of depersonalization, F (1,40) = 5.29; p = 0.03, η p 2 = 0.12, and a marginally significant effect of time of assessment, F (1,40) = 3.68; p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.08.

The largest Euclidean distance value, which was seen in channel 9 for the pro-life video, was marginally significant at P < 0.06.

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 ).

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.

The results showed that there was a marginally significant interaction between regulatory focus and emotion in regard to the behavior of water-saving information dissemination ( F (1,56) = 3.62, p = 0.06)).

Being “not at all” anxious was a marginally significant predictor of weight loss (B = 0.83, p = 0.06).

The TD group outperformed the MD group at a marginally significant level ( p = 0.06), and the RD versus MD contrast was not significant ( p = 0.39).

For well-being indicators, emotion regulation fell to non-significance for positive and negative feelings and remained marginally significant for thriving ( p = .06), suggesting personality plays a more prominent role in eudemonic and emotional well-being compared to emotion regulation.

Condition was a marginally significant trend, B = 0.78, SE = 0.41, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.72, p = 0.06.

There was, however, a marginally significant ( p = 0.06) effect of boredom proneness on risky behavior, such that risky behavior was reduced with increasing levels of boredom proneness (i.e., the opposite effect relative to literature on boredom proneness and self-reported risk-taking) (Table 8 ).