“marginally significant”

Pairwise comparisons of native versus non-native stimuli for each combination of Feature, Group, and Time showed only one marginally significant effect: for Mandarin speakers, phoneme features in the late interval exhibited earlier peak times for native language stimuli ( t (324) = –1.83, p = 0.068).

Both the annual and winter PDO indices displayed marginally significant positive trends (p = 0.068 and 0.032 respectively).

Looking at the Condition * Religiosity interactions, we observed a marginally significant interaction in the USA sample (Religiosity * Secular: p = 0.068; Religiosity * Control: p = 0.052), but this interaction did not replicate in the other sites (ps > 0.3; Table 4 , Models B).

66 ± 14%, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant difference in the single task (86 ± 10 vs. 90 ± 9%, p = 0.068; Figure 2D ).

Familiar operating rooms (>10% of a surgeon’s case volume) also tended to increase vagal tone, though this was marginally significant [β=0.098 (−0.007 to 0.203), P =0.068].

There was also a marginally significant difference in the first presentation of the Jungle Book ( F (1,90) = 3.41, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.037) and the second presentation of Jack‐Jack Attack ( F (1,91) = 3.39, p = 0.069, η 2 = 0.037).

Conversely, in the L1–L3 context, a marginally significant opposite pattern emerged ( b = −0.119, t = −1.86, p = 0.068, R 2 = 0.04), where enhanced inhibitory control was associated with faster “no” response rates.

Technophobia also had a marginally significant effect on fatigue, F (1, 73) = 3.440, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.045.

LDL-C had a marginally significant decreasing trend across LPL quartile groups (P = 0.068).

Comparison of data from high-pass VA found a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.068), specifically with 0.21 ± 0.08 logMAR for the MVF-preserved group and 0.24 ± 0.10 logMAR for the MVF-damaged group.

Multiple testing of the mean angle in the supralateral sector, which was statistically significant, between PSD, fellow, and controls showed a significant difference between fellow and control and a marginally significant difference between PSD and controls (PSD vs. control; P = 0.068, PSD vs. fellow; P = 0.652, fellow vs. control; P = 0.011, Steel-Dwass test).

While no statistically significant interaction was observed between HIV status and either treatment or cancer stage, there was a marginally significant survival benefit for HIV-positive patients diagnosed at Stage 1 (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.13–1.07, p = 0.068).

Low Ki-67 expression was significantly associated with longer OS ( p = 0.03) Similarly, the combination of low expression of p53 and PUMA in TC of primary tumors showed a marginally significant association with OS ( p = 0.068).

detected a significant ( p < 0.001) relationship in a dataset from 27 plant species [ 18 ], whereas the coefficient was marginally significant ( p = 0.068) across 22 species studied by Leffler et al.

mediator) between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the proportion correctly recalled targets on the final test yielded a small, marginally significant main effect of learning condition, F (1,83) = 3.416, p = .068, η 2 p = .040.

In addition, Group × Stimulation × Time revealed a marginally significant effect [ F (2,52) = 2.83, p = 0.068, η p 2 = 0.098].

A marginally significant correlation between fT3 levels and BARD scores in patients of > 65 years was observed ( P = 0.068).

In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in any quartile category compared to the lowest intake of ω-3 fatty acids, although p for trend was marginally significant (p = 0.068).

Elithorn’s Mazes score positively predicted CELF 4 score in the quiet condition with no visual support, β = 0.012, t = 2.525, p = 0.012; however, there was a marginally significant negative interaction effect between EM and the CELF 4 score in the multi-talker babble noise, β = −0.011, t = −1.837, p = 0.068, indicating that the link between EM and CELF 4 score was weakened in the presence of noise.

4 A) of benthic macroinvertebrates, while the differences in δ 13 C values among species were marginally significant (p = 0.068, Kruskal–Wallis test, n = 60, Fig. 4 B).

Change in MCP VD was significant at the moderate to severe NPDR transition ( p = 0.010) and marginally significant at the DM no DR to mild NPDR transition ( p = 0.068).

However, several fatty acids showed marginally significant differences between subjects with and without depressive symptoms, including EPA ( P =0·068), n -3 PUFA ( P =0·072) and n -3 LCPUFA ( P =0·078).

Although all other variables are not significant, household income is marginally significant (B = −0.108, p = 0.068), with people having higher annual income reporting less depression symptoms.

This trend was consistent among species (slopes = −0.107 to −0.015), although the interaction between latitude and species was marginally significant (λ F 2,48 = 2.85, P = 0.068; λ s : F 2,12 = 3.10, P = 0.082).

When we looked at the number of regular responses (coded as 1) as opposed to any other response (coded as 0) as the dependent variable and filler type as the predictor variable, a generalised linear mixed effect model showed a marginally significant difference between low- and high-frequency filler types, t = 1.8250, p = 0.068, reflecting a slightly higher percentage of regular responses for the low body-N filler condition (48.1%) compared to the high body-N filler condition (45.3%).