“marginally significant”

β = 0.547, p = 0.067, marginally significant).

However, we further explored disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage (n=162), and the result suggested that higher expression of PRAME was marginally significant (P=0.067) related to higher recurrence ( Figure S2C ).

Once bite forces were z -score standardised, method was no longer significantly retained; however, a significant model linking bite to size could not be produced, although the model was marginally significant ( P =0.067).

Low SVI was associated with a 14.6% lower likelihood of discharge, though this result was marginally significant (HR=0.854, p=0.067), and high SVI was not statistically significant (HR=0.879, p=0.102).

ATL GABA- MD network) and showed a marginally significant result (z-score = 1.49, p = 0.067).

In this model, clarity change for the full subsample remained non-significant, p = 0.240, however participants without mental illness demonstrated an increase in clarity that was marginally significant at p = 0.067.

Notably, Karnofsky's performance scores (KPS) and clinical stage showed a marginally significant association with OS ( P = 0.067 and P = 0.088) (Figure 1B and 1C ), suggesting they might be additional confounding factors required for control.

As indicated in Table 1 , in the crude model, there was a marginally significant difference among tertiles of the DASS-21 in terms of MCP-1 ( P = 0.067) and used supplements ( P = 0.050).

In addition, there was a marginally significant two-way interaction between Outcome and Length of Streak, wald X 2 (1) = 3.36, p = 0.067, odds ratio = 0.77, such that longer streaks increased the belief that a trend would continue.

However, men did expect a bigger goal difference than women (men: 1.64±0.16; women: 1.24±0.10, t 48 = 2.07, p = 0.043), and although marginally significant, men found the match more frustrating (men: 3.16±0.34; women; 2.16±0.41, t 48 = −1.88, p = 0.067) and were bigger soccer fans than women (men: 0.22±0.16; women: −0.21±0.14, t 48 = 2.00, p = 0.051).

Moreover, the main effect of the IPD was marginally significant, F (1, 35) = 3.580, p = 0.067, and η 2 = 0.093.

Notably, a marginally significant (p = 0.067) interaction existed between the TyG index and smoking status with regard to the risk of DES-ISR.

The effects of Gf were significant for the Gross Food (β = −0.28 [−0.50, −0.06], p = 0.011) and marginally significant for the Terrible Movie (β = −0.36 [−0.75, 0.03], p = 0.067) metaphors but not the Boring Class (−0.08 [−0.44, 0.27], p = 0.644).

In addition, task type was marginally significant, b = − 0.22, SE = 0.11, t (14) = − 1.98, p = 0.067; the interaction between priming direction and task type was marginally significant, b = 0.25, SE = 0.12, t (14) = 2.03, p = 0.061.

Our meta-regression of fecundity responses indicated a marginally significant generation effect across all three taxa, with relative hybrid fecundity increasing over subsequent generations (β gen ± SE = 0.106 ± 0.058, Z = 1.83, P = 0.067, I 2 = 95.6%), although this relationship varied across taxa (Fig. 2 a).

The correlations between similarity and subsequent memory for the right anterior and posterior hippocampus showed a marginally significant difference according to a Williams’ test for dependent correlations ( t = −1.96, P = 0.067).

Although there was a marginally significant zero‐order correlation between time pressure and hindrance appraisal at the within‐person level ( r = .11, SE = 0.06, p = .067), the effect of time pressure on hindrance appraisal was not significant in the MSEM when the effects of learning demands on hindrance appraisal were controlled for.

In line with this hypothesis, the interaction between antibiotic treatment and time of sampling on beta diversity was marginally significant (PERMANOVA treatment x time: p = 0.067).

There was also a marginally significant effect of career preference on perceived social support, F (2, 192) = 2.75, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.03 (see Figure 4 ).

Regarding changes in relatedness ( ΔQGM ), we observed a negative association with ALL G , which was statistically significant in Site 2 ( F 1,47.9 = 8.97, p = 0.004), and marginally significant in Site 1 ( F 1,49.8 = 3.51, p = 0.067; Table S4 ).

A marginally significant interaction effect between products and adjectives (F[1,20] = 3.744, p = 0.067; η 2 = 0.158) was been observed.

The interaction between validity and distractor type was marginally significant, F(1,13) = 3.98, MSE = 24, p = .067.

This may have been because of marginally significant differences in leaf width by year alone (F = 3.47, d.f. = 1,58, p = 0.067).

There was a marginally significant main effect of Baseline Performance, F (1,451) = 3.37, p = 0.067.

The main effect of identification was marginally significant, F (1, 229) = 3.38, p = .067, η 2 p = .01, 90% CI [.000, .05], β = −.11.