“marginally significant”

At the F3 channel, gamma power exhibited a monotonic pattern (i.e., decrease<maintain<increase) with a significant difference between the decrease and maintain conditions (paired t -test: t (19) = 2.53; p <0.05) and a marginally significant difference between the maintain and increase conditions, t (19) = 2.19, p = 0.065.

For the seedling survival analysis, we included hunting and density even though their coefficients were marginally significant (0.05 < P < 0.065) because they were central to our ecological questions and because the full additive model (distance + hunting + density) fit significantly better than the univariate model with distance alone (LRT: P = 0.028, χ 2 = 7.146, df = 2; additive: r 2 = 0.050; univariate distance: r 2 = 0.048).

In addition, a marginally significant main effect of Congruence (Incongruent >Congruent; p = 0.065) and a significant main effect of Context (Focus >Non-focus; p < 0.001) were found in the P600 time window.

Condition had a significant effect, B = −0.96, SE = 0.45, B(Exp ) = 0.38, p = 0.034, locus of control had a marginally significant effect, B = 0.72, SE = 0.39, B(Exp) = 2.05, p = 0.065, and the difference score had no significant effect, B = −0.25, SE = 0.40, B(Exp) = 0.78, p = 0.530.

A marginally significant higher number of people regularly exercised two hours a week or more ( P =0.065).

Effects of Task Framing WM Performance ANCOVA yielded a marginally significant interaction effect of Framing Type × Time [ F (2, 93) = 2.81, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.06] on WM performance.

In addition, the main effects were partly qualified by two marginally significant three-way interactions between hemisphere, condition and group ( F (1,49) = 3.58, p= .065, η p 2 = 0.068) and between age, condition and group ( F (1,49) = 3.00, p= .089, η p 2 = 0.058).

The interaction between peripheral cueing × laterality was marginally significant, F (1,19) = 3.84, p = 0.065, η 2 = 0.17.

The main effect of Language was marginally significant (F(1,624) = 3.414, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.005), as the slopes for Japanese and Dutch tended to differ overall.

The critical 2 (sex) × 2 (compliment) interaction was significant for “jealous” ( p = .006), “distressed/upset” ( p = .049), and “threatened” ( p = .006), and marginally significant for “insecure” ( p = .065).

Finally, differences in neonatal birth weight were marginally significant among groups (p = 0.065), as was the type of feeding at 3 months (p = 0.060).

Participants also demonstrated significant or marginally significant reductions in diastolic blood pressure ( P = 0.065) and mood impairment as measured by the POMS (overall, P = 0.07; depression, P = 0.01; anger/hostility, P = 0.09).

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

Third, the association of functioning with the V-SIR, which was significant in the simple analyses, became nonsignificant ( p = 0.125) when reasoning was included as a covariate and marginally significant ( p = 0.065) when executive functions were included.

Moreover, regarding the post-discharge 1-month clinical follow-up, inotrope use was a marginally significant predictor for post-discharge 1-month mortality (HR adjusted 1.618, 95% CI 0.971–2.697, p = 0.065), while in those with a normal initial SBP, inotrope use was an independent predictor for post-discharge 1-month mortality (HR adjusted 1.768, 95% CI 1.047–2.986, p = 0.033).

On the basis of the analysis of prognostic differences (Figure 6 D), the differences in prognosis between 4 subtypes were marginally significant ( P = .065), and the prognosis of C4 subtype was markedly poorer than that of the other subtypes; as shown by further analysis, the prognosis of C3 subtype was clearly better than that of C4 subtype (Figure 6 E), which was consistent with the validation dataset. 3.8.

Results showed a marginally significant effect of stimulation on the Focus Index (F (1, 30) = 3.67, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.11), with similar scores after stimulation of the DLPFC ( M = 0.05, SD = 0.12) compared with after stimulation of the vertex ( M = 0.01, SD = 0.13).

The risk of 14-day mortality was nearly 10 times higher in patients with GNRI scores ≤98 (HR=9.6 [95%CI 1.3-71.6], P=0.028); this association was marginally significant in the adjusted model (HR=6.73 [95%CI 0.89-51.11], P=0.065)].

However, the analysis of villus height of jejunum showed a marginally significant difference between two groups ( P =0.065).

Results Effects on plant biomass We found a marginally significant effect of soil on shoot fresh biomass ( F 11,96 = 1.8, p = 0.065, Fig. 1 a).

However, these differences among groups were marginally significant ( p = 0.065).

The main effect of time on the participants’ ratings of warmth was marginally significant, F (1, 71) = 3.52, p = .065, η p 2 = .05.

P3a The ANOVA on P3a revealed a main effect of trial condition, F (3, 37) = 15.00, p < .001, η 2 p = 0.55, with AY trials ( M = 12.73 μV, SD = 6.24) eliciting the most positive amplitudes (AX: M = 9.06 μV, SD = 6.05, p < .001, BX: M = 8.88 μV, SD = 4.44, p < .001, BY: M = 9.48 μV, SD = 4.92, p < .001); a marginally significant main effect of group, F (1, 39) = 3.61, p = .065, η 2 p = .09, with larger amplitudes for the inclusion ( M = 11.51 μV, SD = 6.92) than for the exclusion group ( M = 8.57 μV, SD = 7.09).

One of the ancestry components was marginally significant too in the non-smoker summary score (p=0.065).

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 ).