“marginally significant”

The main effect of Threat was not significant ( P = .125) and the interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 70) = 3.52, MSE = 0.01, P = .065, η p 2 = .048, with the false alarm rate for inanimate nonthreatening items being the lowest of the four item types.

Our multiple linear regression including the age and size (SVL) of gravid females as explanatory variables and the litter size as the response variable, revealed a significant effect of a female’s body size (F 1,39 = 28.99, P < 0.0001) and of the interaction term between age and body size (F 1,39 = 6.16, P = 0.018) on her litter size, as well as a marginally significant effect of her age (F 1,39 = 3.62, P = 0.065).

We checked whether this could be explained by manipulation size (β = − 0 .305 ± 0.074, t = −4.122, p < 0.001), with both effects disappearing when including the marginally significant framework × manipulation size interaction in the model ( p = 0.065).

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

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, there were marginally significant interactions between species richness and the presence of shrubs ( Z = 1.845, P = 0.065), as well as significant interactions between MPD and shrub ( Z = 2.180, P = 0.029), on pathogen load (Supplementary Fig. 2 and Table 3 ).

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).

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)].

Similarly, there was a marginally significant gender difference for VT (44.03 ± 10.28 in men versus 41.38 ± 11.15 in women, P = 0.065) and MH (44.98 ± 10.60 versus 41.95 ± 11.56, P = 0.054).

Differences in daughters’ self-esteem over time were marginally significant ( p = 0.065).

Sleep disturbances also showed marginally significant differences in expected influence centrality ( p = 0.065, q < 0.10), suggesting that sleep disturbances may have had different net impacts on the overall network functioning between fathers and mothers.

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).

For both comparisons by median and in tertiles, differences in body mass index explained a marginally significant part of heterogeneity for the association of mtDNA copy number with overall cancer risk (P = 0.065 and 0.081, respectively).

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

The main effect of probe frequency was marginally significant, F(1, 31) = 3.646, p =.065, η p 2 =.105, with higher accuracy for the frequently probe target ( M = 76.6%, SE = 3.2%) than the infrequently probed target ( M = 67.1%, SE = 4.3%).

Species-level results were highly consistent with genus-level results: AT, DTR, and CC demonstrated no significant influence, RH exhibited a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.065), and MWS remained significantly correlated ( p = 0.017).

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).

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

This relationship became marginally significant ( p = 0.065) when accounting for species effects using a linear mixed model.

In contrast, self-leadership demonstrated significant variation according to educational level ( F (2, 343) = 5.125, p = 0.006; η 2 = 0.0290) with a small to medium effect size and marginally significant variation by position ( F (2, 343) = 2.762, p = 0.065; η 2 = 0.016) with a small effect size.

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).

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).

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.

The comparison between the BCVAs before and after 1 year among all patients revealed a marginally significant difference (P = 0.065), which may be attributed to the small sample size in our study.

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).