“marginally significant”

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 ).

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.

A semantic blocking effect was obtained, with slower naming latencies in the semantically related condition than in the unrelated condition [580 and 570 ms, respectively; marginally significant by subjects, t 1(11) = 1.98; p = 0.07; t 2(53) = 2.25; p < 0.05].

As for beta1 parietal asymmetry, its relation with BDI scores was marginally significant ( r = 0.23, p = 0.07) when all participants were pooled together.

The overall warming effects were marginally significant on LFC ( p = 0.07, Table 1 ) but insignificant on LFN ( p = 0.16, Table 1 ).

PLGA nanoparticles incorporating kaempferol also showed marginally significant inhibitory effects compared with kaempferol in phosphate-buffered saline solution ( P = 0.07, Figure 2B ).

Landmark identification Poisson regression on error count revealed a marginally significant effect of group, F (1, 25) = 3.32, p = 0.07, with the older participants identifying fewer Toronto landmarks than the younger participants 5 (Figure 1D ).

Disturbed communities had a marginally significant lower density of organisms ( F 1,90 = 3.4, P = 0.07), while there was no significant interaction among these two factors on density ( F 8,90 = 0.8, P = 0.6).

This difference was marginally significant (p = 0.07).

Maternal education (OR: 1.56 (95% CI: 0.98–2.46); p = 0.057), was marginally significant and was included in the multivariate analysis; additionally low birth weight showed marginal significance (OR: 2.90 (95% CI: 1.12–7.44); p = 0.07), however the large number of missing values for birth weight (19.2% missing) and paternal age (10.9% missing) reduced the potential value as predictive factors and were therefore not included in the multivariate analysis.

After 6 months, the detectable rate decreased to 30.8% (4/13), which was marginally significant (McNemar’s test, P = 0.070).

The interaction SOA×Target was marginally significant, F (3,53) = 2.45, p = .07, η G 2 = .04.

There was a marginally significant main effect of incentive ( β = 0.21, t = 1.79, P = 0.07) such that participants perceived more attractiveness bias in the incentive than control conditions.

Although the main effect of participant group was marginally significant ( F (1,12) = 4.05, p = 0.07), Newman-Keuls tests did not reveal significant differences between the control gains of the two participant groups for either the vertical ( p = 0.14) or the horizontal ( p = 0.13) target motion conditions.

There was also a trivial main effect of the variable quintile, F (4, 156) = 270.59, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.87 (ε = 0.26), and the variable quintile also interacted significantly with congruence, F (4, 156) = 6.97, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.15 (ε = 0.51), with prime type, F (4, 156) = 5.80, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.13 (ε = 0.45), and in a marginally significant three-way interaction with congruence and prime type, F (4, 156) = 3.02, p = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.07 (ε = 0.38).

We obtained similar findings when we examined the CN values for all tumor samples ( Figure S5 ), although our results are marginally significant (p = .07).

This possibility is supported by the p-values of the statistical test between the non-target and the standard conditions during the 0 to 100 ms time window in the left MFG and the left IPS, both of which were marginally significant ( p = 0.07 and p = 0.10, respectively).

The repeated measures ANOVA showed that SAR did not affect soil pH value in the PF ( p = 0.997), but it significantly reduced soil pH value in the BF ( p = 0.01) and the reduction was marginally significant in the MF ( p = 0.07).

Social anxiety reached a marginally significant main effect, F (1, 92) = 3.33, p = 0.07, ∂η 2 = 0.04, while degree of depressive symptoms did not, F (1, 92) < 0.10, p = 0.76.

Accordingly, there was a marginally significant variation among PFTs ( p = .07) in their response to drought stress.

A Kruskal-Wallis test found a marginally significant difference in mean ranks across conditions, H (3) = 6.94, p = .07.

They also had marginally significant (both p<0.07) increased odds of experiencing insomnia and Whooley-screened depression ( Table 4 ).

Further analysis were performed, revealing marginally significant correlations between the size of the length effect in reading RT and RT for naming ( r (15) = 0.37, P = 0.07, one-tailed) and WPM ( r (12) = 0.44, P = 0.06, one-tailed).

For the comparison of response conflict (RI-SI), the difference was marginally significant among the four blocks, F (3,150) = 2.11, p = .07.

But patients with macroscopic ETE who did not receive EBRT showed a marginally significant decrease in CSS (p = 0.07) than those who received EBRT.