“marginally significant”

Validation results Using the 268 parcellation scheme, we found that 5 of the 9 subnetworks and the whole‐brain (all) network were significantly heritable, whereas the default mode network showed marginally significant heritability ( h SNP 2 = 0.062, SE = 0.037, p = .065, corrected; Figure 3 ).

For the ratings of empathic distress, there was a marginally significant emotion effect, F (1, 124) = 3.47, p = .065, η p 2 = .027, indicating a tendency of increased distress for the fearful video clips (mean = 5.03, sd = 1.47) compared to sad clips (mean = 4.84, sd = 1.30).

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

Food restriction experiment Regarding the food restriction experiment, the effect of tail group on the successive measurements of body length during one month was marginally significant (GLMM of SVL at days 0, 10, 20 and 30 with tail group, sex and time as fixed factors and mother as a random factor: F 1,51 = 3.552, p = 0.065).

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).

Season became marginally significant for duration of stay only ( F 1,8 = 4.56; 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%).

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.

People with dementia ratings showed a marginally significant decline in ‘similarity of views’ F(3, 126) = 2.795, p = .065 and ‘generally getting along’, F (3, 135) = 2.446, p = .080 ( Table 3 ).

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.

The interaction itself was marginally significant ( p = 0.065); computing the Johnson–Neyman interval (Johnson and Fay 1950 ) indicates that above the age of 42.21 years, the effect of sex on age is significant: males have a steeper slope than females after this age. 4.

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).

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).

The number of correct markings to the six statements about symptoms of inadequate fluid intake showed a not significant time effect (F(2,288) = 1.480, p = 0.229, η 2 p = 0.01) and a marginally significant Time × Group interaction with a small effect (F(2,288) = 2.756, p = 0.065, η 2 p = 0.02).

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.

Interestingly, the difference in spindle amplitude was marginally significant with higher amplitudes during the auditory stimulation intervals as compared to the rest intervals (V=199; p-value = 0.065; r =0.73), whereas spindle frequency showed the opposite pattern (t=–3.42; df = 22; p-value = 0.005; Cohen’s d=0.71).

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

At SJER, bacterial richness exhibited a similar, marginally significant, trend ( p = 0.065).

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.

The CPM models based on the negative networks effectively predicted conscientiousness (negative network: r = 0.237, P = 0.0036) ( Figure 3B ) and neuroticism (negative network: r = 0.200, P = 0.0164) ( Figure 4B ), while the models based on the positive networks were marginally significant in predicting conscientiousness (positive network: r = 0.147, P = 0.0652) ( Figure 3A ) and neuroticism (positive network: r = 0.143, P = 0.0656) ( Figure 4A ).

A marginally significant difference was found between those children and adolescents with migraine (47.2%; n = 306) vs. those without (42.1%; n = 273) for unhealthy weight ( p = 0.0652).

The model suggests a marginally significant difference in total lesion scores between G2 and G3 at 35 dpi ( p =0.0652), but the evidence is not strong (Supporting Information 3 : Figure S1 and Figure 5 A).

Analyses revealed an overall main effect of time (F [5] , [49] = 5.60, p = 0.0004) and a significant interaction (F [5] , [49] = 5.39, p = 0.0005) for the number of pERK cells, and a main effect of time (F [5] , [50] = 11.12, p <0.0001) and a marginally significant interaction (F [5] , [50] = 2.23, p = 0.0654) for pNR1.

The marginally significant contrast effect between 3-year-olds and 6-year-olds ( B = −0.943, SE = 0.422, z = −2.235, p = 0.0654) indicate that 6-year-olds produced marginally more BA responses than their 3-year-old counterparts while the remaining contrasts among 3- and 4-year-olds, and 4- and 6-year-olds were not significant.

Regarding executive function, cognitive inhibition capacity and processing speed (Stroop) did not show significant differences; however, problem-solving (WCST) errors exhibited a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.0656).