“marginally significant”

For the gene expression data, a 2 (group) × 8 (mRNA) repeated measures ANOVA with multivariate tests showed significant mean differences across mRNAs ( p = 0.0014) and a marginally significant group-by-mRNA interaction ( p = 0.0656).

Medical professionals are less likely to have poor knowledge compared to non-medical professionals, with a marginally significant odds ratio of 0.707 (p = 0.066) (Table 4 ).

The moderation effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.066), indicating partial support for H4.

However, results revealed a marginally significant interaction between implicit partner evaluations and type of behavior, b = 0.18, SE = 0.10, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.38], p = .066, β = 0.07.

A simple effects test revealed that when the space dimension was discontinuous, the effect of visual imagery vividness on verb-clustering performance was marginally significant ( p = 0.066).

Second, when analyzed separately for each group, the correlation was marginally significant for GII ( ρ = 0.346; N = 29; p = 0.066) and not significant for GI ( ρ = −0.042; N = 14; p = 0.892).

Respiration rates after 6 months in the treatments were not significantly influenced by acidification, but tended to be lower in acidified conditions (reflected in a marginally significant interaction between pH and acclimation: F 1 = 4.513, p = 0.066; S2 Table ; Fig 2D ).

Compared with overweight individuals, obese patients showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.066) with a lower likelihood of having DR (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52–1.02).

We also found a marginally significant positive correlation at the right inferior frontal gyrus ( r = 0.471, p = 0.066).

The group × stimulation interaction term was marginally significant, F (2, 54) = 2.85, p = 0.066, ηp 2 = 0.096.

Results showed that Moderate Cluster VI significantly differed from the overall distribution, χ 2 = 11.57, p < 0.003, df = 3, while Simple Cluster I and Cluster II were marginally significant, χ 2 = 7.21, p = 0.066, df = 3, and χ 2 = 7.38, p = 0.061, df = 3, respectively.

The results also showed a trend of increased neutrophils in the microenvironment, although this trend along the stage progress were marginally significant (trend test, P = 0.066; Fig. 7c ).

More direct to our hypothesis, the interaction between week and country was marginally significant [ F (4,526) = 2.22, p = 0.066, η2 = 0.02)].

The difference in mean ages was marginally significant in men (p=0.066) and significant in women (p<0.001).

Both traits showed positive relationships with N 2 fixation gene number, significant for metabolic coverage ( R 2 = 0.006, P = 0.025) and marginally significant for habitat coverage ( R 2 = 0.004, P = .066) ( Supplementary Figs. 4C and D , 5C and D ).

Secondly, the N2 amplitude was also not correlated with the PRL levels in the congruent condition ( p > 0.05), but the correlation was marginally significant in the incongruent condition (r = −0.366, p = 0.066).

In PPC, a strong value effect was found ( t (17) = 4.27, p = 5.8e−4), while the saliency predictor was marginally significant ( t (17) = 1.97, p = 0.066).

The effect of L1 proficiency was marginally significant (F = 3.70,df = 25.18, p = 0.066).

Both temperatures had a non‐significant difference in their attack rate (Da = 0.12, z = 0.58, p = 0.55) and a marginally significant difference in their handling time (Dh = 0.80, z = 1.84, p = 0.066).

On the right side (n=43), a significant effect was observed for time ( P <0.001), while the effect of the intervention was marginally significant ( P =0.066).

The Χ 2 test revealed marginally significant differences in visual problems ( Χ 2 = 10.3, df = 5, p = 0.066; without suspected cases: Χ 2 = 9.32, df = 5, p = 0.097) between the ASD and non-ASD groups.

A supplementary sensitivity analysis decomposing ARSME into behavioral engagement and psychological investment components revealed that psychological investment showed a marginally significant prospective effect on body dissatisfaction ( β = 0.08, p = 0.066), while behavioral screen time did not, providing preliminary support for cognitive-processing-focused interventions.

There was additionally a marginally significant fixed effect of CPRS conflict, F (1, 39) = 3.585, p = 0.066, showing a positive association between arousal and CPRS conflict.

However, the pathway regarding the LC-NE system (from NE, HRV parameter to TCM-based liver function) was not supported; NE had a marginally significant association with the LF/HF ratio ( β = 0.187, t = 1.840, p = 0.066) and there was no significant relationship between the LF/HF ratio and TCM-based liver function ( β = −0.039, t = −0.398, p = 0.690) ( Figure 2 ).

Directionally consistent with our hypotheses, this analysis revealed that higher status trials had a marginally significant higher proportion of donors than lower status ones, p = 0.066.