“marginally significant”

On univariate analysis, the only significant prognostic factor for symptom control duration was BED ≥40 Gy 10 (p < 0.05), and CCRT was a marginally significant factor (p = 0.0644).

We found a marginally significant negative correlation between the number of different habitat types occupied by members of a clade and the mean complexity of those members (PGLS, p = 0.0645, F = 3.668 on 1 & 32 d.f., adj.R 2 = 0.0748, N = 34; Fig. 5e ).

However, the interaction between concentration and varieties (*Conc.Var) is marginally significant ( p = 0.0645), indicating a potential combined influence (Annex 1).

The association between this SNP and nausea was marginally significant in the dominant model ( p = 0.0645), but no significant associations were found in the other analyses ( Table 5 ).

In multivariate analysis, previous PCI was found to be marginally significant with p = 0.0648, however it was kept because the C-statistic of the final model decreased from 0.773 to 0.762, suggesting its importance.

In repeated measures mixed models, interactions between treatment and time was statistically significant for PASAT 3′′, SPART DR, SDMT and Stroop test and marginally significant for SPART 10/36 ( p = 0.0649) and SRT LTS ( p = 0.0556).

Multivariate analysis revealed a significant main effect of probe height (F 5,8 = 33.20, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .95) and a marginally significant interaction between probe height and group (F 5, 8 = 3.03, p = .065, partial eta 2 = .67), suggesting that both groups exhibited changes in escape latency as a function of probe height ( Fig 2 ).

The comparisons between acceptance ratios of “unfair/unfair” offer in two face conditions was marginally significant ( p = 0.065).

When the measurements were mutually adjusted for each other, BMI remained to be a significant predictor of prediabetes in both sexes ( P <0.05), and marginally significant predictor of diabetes in men ( P =0.065) but not in women.

Moreover, there was a marginally significant Time x Group interaction; F (2, 158) = 2.79, p = 0.065, eta 2 = 0.03.

For true sentences, we found a marginally significant effect of Modality switch [ F (1, 10) = 4.28, MSE = 20.72, p = 0.065] in the frontal electrodes, where mismatch showed a greater positivity than match (0.929 vs. 0.126 μV, difference 0.803).

Of these, channels 1, 3, and 4 in the LH formed a statistically significant spatial cluster ( P = 0.016), while channels 14 and 17 formed a marginally significant cluster in RH ( P = 0.065).

This was done to account for a marginally significant difference in age as a function of gender [ F (1,115) = 3.47, P = 0.065].

Finally, there was a marginally significant interaction of Hemisphere with Age group, F (1, 44) = 3.58, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.08; the difference between the N1 latency in the left compared with the right hemisphere seemed slightly larger for adults, M = 21, SD = 33, t (31.36) = 1.99, p = 0.056, compared with children ( M = 7, SD = 14).

The general linear model of the improvement in fluency was marginally significant, F (5, 84) = 2.17, p = .065, η p 2 = .114, power = .72.

However, the indirect effects of gender role mindset on job satisfaction and DAS through work–family conflict were significant ( b indirect = −.09, 95% CI = [−0.15, −0.03], z = −2.78, p = .006; b indirect = −.06, 95% CI = [−0.12, −0.02], z = −2.43 p = .015) and marginally significant for RAS ( b indirect = −.03, 95% CI = [−0.07, −0.004], z = −1.84, p = .065).

The interaction between state and post-Medicaid expansion period showed that individuals in Kentucky had a reduction in mortality post-ACA (HR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.75-1.01), although this effect was marginally significant (p=0.065).

DPD and DST show a marginally significant association with DST ( p = 0.065). 3.4.

In terms of ACC, the main effect of priming emotion types was marginally significant, F(2,52) = 2.882, p = 0.065, η P 2 = 0.100.

Subgroup analyses revealed that the comparison of allele ε4 with ε3 was significant in Asians (OR =1.58, 95% CI =1.17–6.32, P =0.003, I 2 =12.1%) and in studies that used the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) genotyping method (OR =1.27; 95% CI =1.01–1.61, P =0.045, I 2 =34.3%), and was marginally significant in hospital-based studies (OR =1.33; 95% CI =0.98–1.79, P =0.065, I 2 =30.2%), without heterogeneity.

The correlation between bullying victimization and rumination was marginally significant ( p = 0.065), and correlations between all other main variables were significant, indicating bullying victimization was significantly and positively associated with PTSD, social anxiety, loneliness, and rumination.

There was a significant trial type effect ( F = 6.0, df = 2, p = 0.003), as well as win stay/lose shift by group interaction ( F = 8.40, df = 1.2, p < 0.001), a win stay/lose shift by trial type interaction ( F = 32.79, df = 1.2, p < 0.001), and a marginally significant trial type by group interaction ( F = 2.26, df = 2.2, p = 0.065).

As expected, happiness showed significantly negative correlations with sadness ( r = –0.256, p = 0.010), fear ( r = –0.271, p = 0.006), and disgust ( r = –0.274, p = 0.006) but a marginally significant negative correlation with anger ( r = –0.184, p = 0.065).

A mixed effects logistic regression analysis of gesture type as a function of group revealed a marginally significant effect of group (ß = −1.256, p = 0.065), with L2 signers' producing numerically more gestures about figure than path-only gestures (67% vs. 33%, SD = 26) compared to the non-signers (46% vs. 54% SD = 28).

Those with commercial insurance had a higher odds of receiving prenatal consultation than those with Medicaid or self-pay and was marginally significant (OR [95%CI] = 4.31 [0.91, 20.36], p = 0.065).