“marginally significant”

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.

It was found that PDOF ( p = 0.001) had a significant negative effect, impact velocity ( p = 0.055) had a marginally significant positive effect, and impact height ( p = 0.068) had a marginally significant negative effect on FE model predicted maximum principal strain.

26 , 34 , 49 Our correlation analyses suggested that reduced gBOLD-CSF coupling (less negative) was associated with higher-order tau across the whole cohort and Aβ+ individuals (both p < 0.026, multiple linear regression), while the coupling-tau link was marginally significant in impaired Aβ+ participants ( p = 0.068; Figure 1E ), reflected by a significant interaction ( p = 0.020) between amyloid and tau on gBOLD-CSF coupling.

A post hoc multiple comparison test showed that in the magnitude Stroop congruent condition, there was a marginally significant interaction between the SNARC and cognitive Simon effects, with F (1, 31) = 3.58, p = 0.068, and η p 2 = 0.10, showing that the effect size of the SNARC effect in the Simon congruent condition (41 ± 8 ms) tended to be larger than that in the Simon incongruent condition (25 ± 7 ms); however, in the magnitude Stroop incongruent condition, there was no interaction between the SNARC and cognitive Simon effects, with F (1, 31) = 0.71, p = 0.407, and η p 2 = 0.02 ( Figures 4A , B ; Table 3 ).

The interaction effect between electrodes and condition was marginally significant (χ 2 (2) = 4.783, p = 0.068), and the post hoc comparison suggested that the ERP responses evoked by aspect violation sentences were larger than those evoked by correct sentences at PZ (β = 2.038, SE = 1.227, z = 2.362, p = 0.017).

Secondly, it is interesting to note that the overall mean WMC score for participants in Experiment 2 was higher ( k = 3.28) than the mean score found in Experiment 1 ( k = 3.09), with this difference being marginally significant [ t (82) = 1.85, p = 0.068, d = 0.40].

The survival difference between both group was marginally significant (p = 0.068).

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).

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%).

incorrect for conflict problems, t (42) = 4.64, p < .001, d = 0.71; (2) the same difference holds for no-conflict problems, t (42) = 4.60, p < .001, d = 0.70; (3) correct responses to conflict problems were produced with greater confidence than correct responses to no-conflict problems, t (67) = 2.72, p = .008, d = 0.33; (4) incorrect responses to conflict problems were presented with greater confidence than incorrect responses to no-conflict problems, though this difference was marginally significant, t (34) = 1.88, p = .068, d = 0.32, which most likely relates to the fact that this was the pairwise comparison (out of the 6 tests presented here) with fewer datapoints; indeed, the difference in overall values for these cells (not conditional on whether participants committed both types of error)

Moreover, differences in richness of typical grassland species among treatment were recorded, even if marginally significant (F = 5.69, p = 0.068).

However, we found a marginally significant interaction between gender of participant and experimental condition on aesthetic appreciation, F = 3.35, p = 0.068, η 2 = 0.004.

On the other hand, reduced risk of death was seen in patients with any reduction in tumor AEF (decrease ratio ≥ 0) and with increased AEF but not exceeding the ratio of 0.102 (increase ratio < 0.102) (HR = 0.32, p < 0.001), though the protective effect was marginally significant in the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.61, 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.

In public validation sets for samples with PFS information ( n =91), the Class-1 membership was associated with better prognosis in univariate analysis ( P =1.4 × 10 −3 ), shown as Figure 2 , and still marginally significant association with multivariate analysis ( P =6.8 × 10 −2 , n =57).

Differences in IES-R score between the UC and LP groups were marginally significant from baseline to 12 months ( p = 0.068).

Although marginally significant ( p = 0.068), parents in the COVID-19-affected group reported lower scores in the “treatment adherence II” domain compared with parents unaffected by COVID-19 (82.08 ± 20.08 vs. 85.38 ± 17.48, p = 0.068). 4.

When the SSPI was entered in Block 1 and SSPC was entered in Block 2 of a hierarchical logistic regression analysis, there was significant effect in Block 1 ( χ 2 (1) = 7.97, p = 0.005), explaining 8.2% of the variance (Nagelkerke), but only a marginally significant effect for Block 2 ( χ 2 (1) = 3.32, p = 0.068) explaining 11.5% of the variance (Nagelkerke).

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).

The three-way interaction was marginally significant (Task × Difficulty × Key, F 1,53 =3.47, p =0.068, p η 2 =0.062). 2.3.

Differences in systemic inflammatory markers based on surgery type Surgery type accounted for marginally significant differences in post-surgical plasma IL-6 concentrations (tested using ANCOVA) ( F (2,11) = 3.47, p = 0.068, Fig. 2a ), but not TNF-α ( p = 0.38, Fig. 2b ).

In line with this thought, we also performed a McDonald-Kreitman test (MK test) for the genes and found that both genes are marginally significant or insignificant ( tweedledee p = 0.068; tweedledum p = 0.048), despite that these are small genes and have low Pn values.

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).

Moreover, the differences of ERPs elicited by “NAL” and “NA” prosodies were marginally significant over left hemisphere ( p = .068).

Accurate responses were significantly faster for good images than bad images (892 ms and 1028 ms respectively; t(8) = 8.82, p <0.001), and this effect was significant across all the categories (t(8) = 8.53, p <0.001 for beaches; t(8) = 6.27, p <0.001 for forests; t(8) = 4.42, p <0.01 for highways; t(8) = 5.2, p <0.001 for mountains and t(8) = 2.58, p <0.05 for offices) except for city streets in which the difference was marginally significant (t(8) = 2.10, p = 0.068).