“marginally significant”

The difference between groups at the old airport location before the move was marginally significant p = 0.062 [ 23 ], but not any more after the move.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between group and accent ( β = −0.51, SE = 0.27, z = −1.87, p = 0.062).

There was no significant main effect of stimulation [F(1, 19) = 2.165, p = 0.158; ɳ 2 = 0.102], but a main effect of session was marginally significant [F(1, 19) = 3.931, p = 0.062; ɳ 2 = 0.171], implying the presence of a slight practice effect.

In the total population, patients with Ki67 ≥14% had marginally significant shorter PFS than those with Ki67 <14% [6.0 vs. 10.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95–3.96; P=0.062; Figure 1A ].

Meanwhile, the difference between nR0 and nR(un) was significant in pT1 (RFS, 5‐year rate: 92.0% versus 74.1%, p < 0.001; OS, 5‐year rate: 92.6% versus 77.7%, p < 0.001) and marginally significant in pT2 disease (RFS, 5‐year rate: 70.5% versus 59.4%, p = 0.062; OS, 5‐year rate: 72.0% versus 62.3%, p = 0.077) (supplementary material, Figure S1E,F ).

Analyzing FRN amplitudes at electrode site FCz (Figure 2 ) using peak-to-peak measures, we found a significant main effect of expectancy, F (1, 28) = 15.77, p < 0.001, and a marginally significant main effect of valence, F (1, 28) = 3.79, p = 0.062, showing more negative amplitudes for unexpected feedback and for losses compared to expected feedback and wins.

Moreover, lower right ventricular fractional area change (RV FAC) exhibited a marginally significant association with recurrence (OR: 0.927, p = 0.062).

For the forgetting rate of 1 day, ANOVA with feedback type and initial correctness as factors showed a significant effect of feedback type, F (2.42, 53.14) = 3.09, p = .045, η p 2 = .12, and a marginally significant interaction, F (2.30, 50.65) = 2.81, p = .062, η p 2 = .11.

Another difference from the congruent trials is that in the ASD group, there is a marginally significant negative cue effect at the short delay [−18.9 ms (± 9.9), t (52) = −1.9, p = 0.062; Figure 4D ], and this results in a significant group difference at the short delay [32.9 ms (± 13.7), t (1675) = 2.4, p = 0.016; Figure 5B ].

Two further tests were marginally significant: regrowth following −1 °C and drought treatment ( P =0.062) and LDMC and regrowth following −3 °C ( P =0.072); we do not consider these tests any further.

Average values for vimentin mRNA after LPS treatment were higher in both VAD and VAA groups, consistent with the protein staining results shown in Figure 5 g, although this was marginally significant ( P = 0.062) only in the VAA group.

The relative importance of predation risk was greater in Copper than No Copper treatments (0.87 ± 0.19 and 0.50 ± 0.06, respectively; mean ± SEM)–though this comparison was marginally significant at α = 0.05 (two sample t-test, t 4.80 = -1.86, p = 0.062).

Although the dietary diversity of the complementary diets remained very low, like in other parts of the country [ 10 , 45 ], it was marginally significant; considerably higher children in the intervention than comparison group at endline were fed on diverse diets (DID of 9.5, p = 0.062).

After model adjustment for baseline risk factors, the OR remained significant for type II DM (aOR: 2.16; CI: 1.18-3.94; P = 0.012), QRS > 120 (aOR: 2.18; CI: 1.02-4.66; P = 0.045) and marginally significant for supraventricular arrhythmias (aOR: 1.82; CI: 0.97-3.42; P = 0.062).

The increase in response to speech was marginally significant compared to rhesus ( t (23) = 1.96, p =.062) and human non-communicative non-speech vocalizations ( t (23) = 1.82, p =.081).

However, results revealed a marginally significant three-way interaction effect, F [1,187] = 3.53, p = 0.062, η η 2 = 0.02, favoring Hypothesis 2.

These trends were marginally significant (Fischer’s exact test, p = 0.062; Figure 3 ).

The interaction effect of mask type and stimulus type was marginally significant [ F (2, 62) = 2.91, p = 0.062, η p 2 = 0.07].

A marginally significant interaction between LPS and Bifidobacterium supplementation was detected for ADG ( P = 0.062) ( Table 2 ).

Notably, ‘routine treatment’ (23 trials) and ‘comfort group settings’ (27 trials) showed marginally significant trends (interaction p=0.062 and 0.076, respectively), suggesting these factors might contribute to between-study heterogeneity.

There was a marginally significant difference between the two groups for RASI, including ACEI, ARB, and ARNI (54.9% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.062).

The posttest social awareness ( p = 0.062, marginally significant), social cognition ( p < .05) scores were lower than the baseline scores in the MBTP group, but not in the control group ( p > .05).

Additionally, there was a marginally significant interaction between context and round, F = 3.55, p = 0.062, partial η 2 = 0.02.

The difference between “everything” and “something” was marginally significant ( Z = −1.87; P = 0.062), and the difference between “everything” and “nothing” was significant ( Z = −2.94; P = 0.003). 3.2.

Mortality was lower among patients receiving intervention (38.61%) compared to those not receiving intervention (57.14%), with a marginally significant difference (χ 2 = 5.55, p = 0.062).