“marginally significant”

jararaca was marginally significant (z = -1.853, p = 0.0639).

A marginally significant main effect was found for experts, F (1,36) = 3.89, p = .064, η p 2 = 0.178, indicating that the expert had a longer average fixation time for the AOI than the novice.

A marginally significant TYPE*GRAM*GROUP interaction (F1(1,48) = 3.6, p = 0.064; F2(1,508) = 3.8, p = 0.052) revealed that participants reacted faster to sentences containing patient subject violations than to the corresponding grammatical sentences (natives: F(1,46) = 16.76, p < 0.001; non-natives: F(1,46) = 5.49, p = 0.023).

They had lower abstract reflection [ F (1, 62) = 7.81, p = 0.007, η 2 p = 0.112]; higher –although marginally significant– referential activity [ F (1, 62) = 3.56, p = 0.064, η 2 p = 0.054], and the covariation between referential and reflection/reorganization activities [ F (1, 32) = 3.74, p = 0.058, η 2 p = 0.057].

The association between secondary traumatic stress and depression was marginally significant ( p = 0.064), suggesting that every unit increase in secondary traumatic stress was associated with a 16.6% higher risk of depression.

Then, a multivariate ANOVA was conducted and revealed a marginally significant main effect for the groups [ F ( 6 , 42 ) = 2.182, p = 0.064; η 2 = 0.238; Pillai’s trace: 0.475].

Effects of HRW on Sleep Quality and Mood: Exploratory Subgroup Analysis For those with difficulty sleeping, the exploratory subgroup analyses showed significant main effects of time ( p = 0.011) and marginally significant effects of interaction ( p = 0.064), but not group ( p = 0.909), on sleep quality as assessed via PSQI score ( Table 3 ).

While there was no significant three-way interaction, all two-way interactions were significant or marginally significant [F(1, 23) ≥ 3.77, p ≤ .064].

A significant and negative correlation was identified between the mean FD and SNR (r=−0.068, P =0.027), and this relationship remained marginally significant (r=−0.058, P =0.064) when we removed the subjects with high head motion (mean FD>0.2 mm, N =6).

In that way, corolla color had a marginally significant negative indirect effect on female fitness via number of flower (Estimate = −0.257, Z = −1.85, p = 0.064; Supplementary Table S2 ; Figure 2B ).

Language network average clustering coefficient was also a significant predictor of Phonology [ Estimate = −8.100, 95% CI = (−15.662, −0.538), P = 0.036] and Semantics [ Estimate = 9.036, 95% CI = (1.249, 16.823), P = 0.023], and a marginally significant predictor of Lexical syntax [ Estimate = 8.777, 95% CI = (−0.501, 18.055), P = 0.064].

These effects were accompanied with a valence × social content [ F (1, 18) = 7.30, p = 0.015] and a marginally significant side × valence × social content [ F (1, 18) = 3.89, p = 0.064] interaction.

Although marginally significant, the percentage at which those who witnessed violence in the household were twice that for IPV victims than non-victims of SPIPV (27.8% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.064). 3.2.

Moreover, a marginally significant effects due to age was detected [ F (2, 32) = 2.996, p = 0.064].

Comparison of Hemostatic Parameters Across Study Groups According to Figure 2 , no statistically significant differences were found in APTT (p-value > 0.05), while PT and INR were considered marginally significant (p-value = 0.064 and p-value = 0.052, respectively).

Lastly, the moderating effect of age on the association between maternal warmth and adolescents’ next-day self-esteem was marginally significant (b = -0.10, SE = 0.04, p = 0.064), while neither gender nor SES showed moderating effect ( p s > 0.465).

Marginally significant CS-type × time × group interaction tests indicated group differences in CS differentiation time courses across conditioning (Wilks' λ F=1.7, d.f.=14;134, P =0.064, partial η 2 =0.15).

Repeated measures ANOVA indicated a marginally significant time-by-plasma manipulation interaction, F (3, 108) = 2.93, ε = .617, P = .064, as observed in Figure 6 .

The differences between delays as a function of the outcomes procedure were further qualified by the emerging marginally significant interaction between the factors [ F (1, 13) = 4.09, p = 0.064, η p 2 = 0.239].

Due to a marginally significant group by correctness interaction in the omnibus ANOVA, F (1, 36) = 3.65, p = 0.064, another follow-up analysis was conducted separately for natives and learners.

Indeed, age showed a marginally significant correlation with amygdala activation for the Valence contrast [ r (115) = 0.17, P = 0.064], with greater (Negative > Positive) amygdala activation in older adults.

The overall model was marginally significant, F (3, 235) = 2.46, R 2 = 0.03, p = 0.064.

Relationships between lung function, BHR, and eNO levels in the AA group In the AA group, the FEV1 % pred measurement showed a significant negative correlation with DRS methacholine (r=-0.280, P <0.01), a marginally significant negative correlation with DRS AMP (r=-0.192, P =0.064).

A one-way ANOVA model was marginally significant ( F = 2.48, df = 5, 131, P = 0.064).

Pairwise comparisons showed a marginally significant difference in total fluid administration across all groups (p=0.064), and a statistically significant difference between the CFT and GDFT/ED groups (p=0.003).