“marginally significant”

There was also a marginally significant Font Type × Production interaction, F (1,41) = 3.60, MSE = .007, p = .065, η g 2 = .012, BF 10 = 1.15, such that the difference in errors between aloud and silent trials was slightly larger for lowercase than alternating case fonts, but the effect was quite small (in addition to being nonsignificant) so we opted not to overinterpret it.

In addition, a post hoc comparison showed a marginally significant gender difference in the EF scores, ( F (1, 752) = 3.41, p = 0.065, d = 0.13), with girls ( M = 100.98, SD = 18.83) scoring higher than boys ( M = 98.46, SD = 18.80).

Also, the patients’ age that yielded only a marginally significant result in the univariate analysis ( p = 0.065) did demonstrate a certain predictive power ( p = 0.010) for penetration and aspiration under consideration of other possible influencing factors in the linear regression.

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

The ICU discharge status was marginally significant, with more proportion of patients transferred to the ward in stage 1 than stage 2 (0.45 vs. 0.37; p = 0.065).

When the burst sound appeared in the right ear (perturbing the 41 Hz tone), the 41 Hz ASSR power perturbation was more strongly modulated during walking ( M = −1.19; SD = 0.68) compared with standing ( M = −0.87; SD = 1.05); however the post hoc t test was marginally significant ( t (27) = 1.92; p = 0.065; Fig. 5 b ).

An analysis with information structuring revealed similar results: a significant effect for Tool-use , F (1,88) = 52.36, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.373, d = 1.47, with a superiority of the hyperlink condition (hyperlink: M = 243.16, SD = 25.0; annotation: M = 199.99, SD = 33.3), and a marginally significant effect for Setting, F (1,88) = 3.485, p = 0.065, partial η 2 = 0.038, d = 0.32, with higher scores for dyads (dyads: M = 228.16, SD = 38.5; individuals: M = 216.68, SD = 33.9).

Sex was marginally significant in its association with exam performance, F (1, 334) = 3.55, p = 0.065, β = −0.10, 95% CI = [−0.44, 0.01], indicating that females tended to score higher on the exam than males.

A marginally significant inverse association was observed in males ( P = 0.065), and a significant inverse relationship was found in Non-Hispanic Black individuals ( P = 0.004).

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).

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).

Only a marginally significant main effect of age group, F (2, 108) = 2.8, p = .065, η 2 = .047 was found.

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 difference in the response rate between the two groups was marginally significant ( z = 1.85, p = 0.065), with a positive (favouring active treatment) overall effect size OR = 1.525 (95% CI 0.975–2.385) and no evidence suggesting heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0.0%, Q = 10.84, p = 0.457).

This is also verified by our findings that there were larger changes in lignin content (less final content) in MP‐polluted soils than in the unpolluted ones ( p = 0.032), and greater lignin loss for the former (53.92%) than the latter (44.31%) (marginally significant, p = 0.065; Figure 3b ).

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

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).

However, marginally significant p-values in knowledge and perceived severity suggested a difference between groups believing that alcohol consumption favors students' school performance ( P = 0.065) and how serious students' alcohol consumption is during weekends ( P = 0.093), respectively.

According to the result of Spearman’s partial rank correlational analysis, using higher rate of words related to important others showed marginally significant association with reduction in purge behaviours (Spearman r p = 0.42, p = 0.065).

In patients with HCC, a marginally significant difference was found in the cumulative survival rates between the risk and no-risk groups ( p = 0.065; Supplementary Figure S6B ). 3.6.

All seven PSQI components were significantly associated with depression, anxiety, and stress (P<0.05), except for sleep duration and stress, as well as sleep duration and depression, which had a marginally significant association (P=0.065).

The interaction between delay and action was marginally significant [ F (1,34) = 3.6, p = 0.065], and indicated that performance improvement in delayed touch trials was present in active touch blocks [ F (1,34) = 10.0, p = 0.003] but absent in passive touch blocks [ F (1,34) < 1, p = 0.521].

Furthermore, within ASD-LL less children were reported to have an additional diagnosis of ADHD ( n = 2; 10%) compared to ASD-HL ( n = 8; 40%) and this difference was marginally significant ( FET p = .065, OR = 6.00) showing a statistical significant trend and a large clinical significance ( OR > 5).

SZ participants There was a main effect of Problem Type, such that living problems were solved more accurately than non-living problems F (1,12) = 7.89, p < 0.01, as evident in Figure 2B , and a marginally significant effect of relation (one-relation more accurate than two-relation problems) F (1,12) = 4.14, p = 0.065.

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.