“marginally significant”

The analysis of percentage errors showed a marginally significant main effect of spatial correspondence F (1,46) = 3.58, p = 0.065, η p 2 = 0.07 that interacted significantly with instruction F (1,46) = 4.40, p = 0.041, η p 2 = 0.09.

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.

Additionally, there was a marginally significant interaction of Context × Phase, F (1, 76) = 3.50, p = 0.065, η 2 p = 0.04, indicating overall successful extinction.

Participants over 50 years also demonstrated increased odds of repeat utilization, though this association was marginally significant (AOR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0–4.3, p = 0.065).

Although marginally significant, it is worth noting that headache (p=0.065) and chest pain (p=0.052) were less likely to present in the 1 st tertile rather than the 3 rd tertile.

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.

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).

A two-way within-subjects ANOVA on the signal changes in the superior IPS revealed a marginally significant interaction between the task (image-based, material-based, vs. color-based) and set size (2, 4, vs. 6), F (4, 68) = 2.33, p = .065, which indicated that the effect of set size was significant in the color-based change detection task, F (2, 16) = 5.17, p = .019, but not in the image-based and material-based tasks, F (2, 16) = 1.93, p = .178 and F (2, 16) = 0.15, p = .862, respectively.

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

Frugivory proportion conducted positive effect on trait matching, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.065; Figure 3a ; Table S11 ).

Those Bonferroni adjusted p -values lower than 0.05 or marginally significant ( p < 0.065) were considered.

A marginally significant difference in DFS between the PR− and PR+ disease was seen in postmenopausal patients (log rank P =0.065).

Regarding DFS, only the administration of regimens involving CD-DST-selected drugs was found to be a prognostic factor (P=0.037), although EGFR status was demonstrated to be a marginally significant factor (P=0.065).

Welch two-sample t-tests showed that the age-difference was marginally significant for orientations around vertical ( t (37) = −1.9, p = 0.065; older: M = 10.8, SD = 2; younger: M = 9.7, SD = 2) but not for orientations around horizontal ( t (39) = 0.02, p = 0.98; older: M = 10.2, SD = 2; younger: M = 10.3, SD = 3).

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.

We also observed marginally significant correlations between the change in SDLP and the change in Factor 4- Delayed Choice Reaction (r = 0.203, p = 0.065).

However, this risk factor was marginally significant in a multivariate model ( p = 0.065).

In terms of the yield-plasticity (α), the genetic gain of the 237 core cultivars was not significant, but interestingly, that of the 23 major cultivars was marginally significant ( P = 0.065), with a 1.1% annual increase relative to the mean plasticity of the 23 cultivars (Fig. 1d ).

In a similar pattern, the interaction effect of paternal care and overprotection predicted offspring hippocampal GMV that was marginally significant (Paternal care × Paternal overprotection, b = −0.07, SE = 0.04, p = 0.065, Δ R 2 = 0.006) (see Table 5 : Model 2).

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).

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

Nevertheless, the condition × group interaction on RTs was marginally significant ( p = 0.065), since older adults presented slower RTs in incongruent trials (mean RT = 929 ms, SD = 202) compared to congruent trials (mean RT = 919 ms, SD = 200), t (24) = -2.22, p < 0.05.

Using general linear models that controlled for sex (Table 1 ), there were significant population-by-host interactions for both wing length ( P = 0.006) and wing area ( P = 0.009) as well as a marginally significant interaction for development time ( P = 0.065).

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