“marginally significant”

Specifically, all paths were significant, except for the path from NPO to worry which was marginally significant ( β = 0.21, p = 0.07).

None of the individual subscales were found to significantly modulate perspective taking behaviour (see Appendix A Table 4 ), although the model with switching showed a marginally significant interaction between perspective and switching, β = –0.93, p = .07, CI [–1.94, 0.06]: higher switching scores (i.e. poorer switching ability, as measured by the AQ) were marginally more likely to be associated with less egocentric perspective taking on different perspective trials. 4 To verify the unique contribution of OPT score on egocentric perspective taking behaviour, we constructed a final model including only the predictors of perspective and its interaction with OPT score.

Moreover, a marginally significant positive association was seen between WHR (β = 0. 004, 95%CI = 0.00 to 0.008, p = 0.07) and GRS in adjusted model.

Moreover, the difference between the two groups in delta 1 was marginally significant but in the expected direction, with delta 1 being larger in the Training-first group than in the Waiting-first group ( p < 0.07; Cohen’s d = 0.49).

Moreover, we observed a marginally significant ( p = 0.07, Mann–Whitney test) difference in the number of DRMs of NS3-specific DAAs (4–10) and multi-protein DAAs (8–16).

The reduction in the number of emergency and elective surgeries for specialties other than general surgery were higher than general surgery residents and the observed difference was marginally significant (P = 0.07 and P = 0.02 respectively).

Furthermore, we assessed the impact of age on the percentage of chaotic power and found a marginally significant correlation ( r = −0.10, p = 0.07) between the two variables.

The results also revealed a marginally significant Time x Intervention interaction for depression scores, F (1, 56) = 3.41, p = 0.07.

There was a significant decrease in the number of patients that were hospitalized due to internalizing disorders from 2019 ( M ± SD = 22.3 ± 9.3 per month) to 2020 ( M ± SD = 16.8 ± 7.7; B = −5.5, 95% CI = −8.0 to −3.0, p = 0.0002) and a marginally significant increase in the number of restraints per month (2019: M ± SD = 2.8 ± 6.8, 2020: M ± SD = 9.0 ± 14.5; Z = −1.96, Rosenthal’s r = 0.36, p = 0.07).

In contrast, the congruity–valence interaction was marginally significant in the H-EC condition, F (1, 80) = 3.28, p = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.04.

Additionally, we calculated the correlation between the increase in creativity scores and decrease in aggression scores from PreT to PoT2 in the intervention group and found a marginally significant correlation ( r = .32, p = .07).

There was a marginally significant main effect of session for congruent correct (beta(5, 213) = −5.27, t = −1.81, p = 0.07) trials, with a significant effect for incongruent correct trials (beta(5, 213) = −9.57, t = −3.12, p = 0.002), indicating that reaction times decreased over time for the entire sample.

Nevertheless, we observed significant or marginally significant main effects of Scene type and Time course ( p < 0.07), indicating inherent differences between the two scene types.

Using a Mann-Whitney test, this difference is marginally significant (p < 7%), and it contradicts Hypothesis 3 .

However, we found only a marginally significant ( p = 0.07) interaction in the regression model for the RAT.

A marginally significant interaction of Congruency by Block was found in the by-participants analysis, F 1 (3.47, 117.91) = 2.31, p = .07, while this interaction was highly significant in the by-items analysis; F 2 (6, 99) = 3.20, p = .007, η p 2 = .16.

For the RCFT measure of planning/organization, there was a marginally significant main effect of Time ( F (1,22) = 3.78, P = .07) with a large size effect ( η p 2 = .15) ( Table 2 ).

As illustrated in Figure 2 , individuals who transitioned from moderate to high solitude at T2 scored notably higher in social avoidance compared to those who remained unchanged, although the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.07, Cohen’s d = 0.52).

The difference was marginally significant for the top 10 categories in name frequency ( z = −2.04, P = 0.07); for this group, the mean visual presence was 0.4 (SD = 0.32, Mdn = 0.34, IQR = 0.56) and the mean proportion of mealtimes with the name present was 0.11 (SD = 0.04, Mdn = 0.1, IQR = 0.05), In brief, the structure of the mealtime environment is one in which the visual referents for early-learned categories are persistently present, but the heard names are not.

Interestingly, ESCCs under strong selection exhibit significantly higher gITH ( P < 0.001) and achieve a marginally significant increase for copy number ITH ( P = 0.07) as compared to samples with neutral evolution.

However, the main effect of span was marginally significant [ F (2, 67) = 2.67, p = 0.07, η 2 =0.19], and there was a significant Elaboration x Span interaction [ F (2, 67) = 3.97, p = 0.05, η 2 =0.23].

Again, to provide a complete picture of OT changes along with changes in HC, we conducted post hoc tests and found marginally significant changes in LR ( p = 0.070) but not in HR animals during four weeks of social housing ( Figures 5 F and 5I).

Moreover, compared to the control group, the VI and quadriceps thickness in the intervention group increased ( F = 17.85, P < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.37 and F = 15.62, P < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.34), with a marginally significant increase in the thickness of soleus ( F = 3.59, P = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.11).

The test revealed a statistically significant difference in change in scores between high ( M = -1.45, SD = 2.9) and low ( M = 1.7, SD = 4.1) initial RMET ability ( F (1, 232) = 48.38, p < .001, d = 0.17) and a marginally significant difference between training conditions ( F (2, 232) = 2.74, p = .07).

For the 1 s delay condition, a marginally significant difference was evident between the high sleep quality group and the low sleep quality group ( p = 0.07).