“marginally significant”

For improvement from sight-reading to day 2, technical performance in the interleaved condition was rated as better than the blocked condition by rater 1 (sign test, marginally significant: p = 0.07, see Figure 1 ).

Finally, a three-way validity × believability × stimulation condition was marginally significant, F ( 1 , 33 ) = 3 . 58 , p = 0 . 07 , η p 2 = 0 . 10 .

However, the interaction effect between illusion type and the number of repeated auditory stimuli was marginally significant, F (1,26) = 3.52, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.12, which means that the one and two repeated stimuli conditions showed no significant difference for both fission and fusion illusions.

In terms of personal and family history factors, low birth weight showed marginally significant association with IR only in bivariate analysis and only in males (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 0.93, 3.75; p = 0.07).

Sample type showed a marginally significant effect (p-value = 0.07), with the 6% M and 9% samples demonstrating superior performance compared to other samples.

Additionally, there was a marginally significant difference in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test ( F (1,44) = 3.44, p = 0.07), with the ASD only group having a marginally higher mean when controlling for FIQ, indicating that the ASD + ADHD group present slightly higher difficulties in the Eyes Test.

Response latencies in Range 3 were faster than in Range 4, although this effect was marginally significant [ F (1,7) = 4.72, MSE = 0.02,4, p < 0.07].

Both mastery and control experiences had a significant and negative relationships with emotional exhaustion (r = −0.14, p < 0.05 and r = −0.41, p < 0.001, respectively) whereas the relationship between relaxation and emotional exhaustion was marginally significant level (r = −0.13, p = 0.07).

Marginally significant higher level in smokers was found in the first Model 1 ( p = 0.07) but the level in EC users and duals was not significantly different compared to non-smokers.

A marginally significant indirect effect attributed to rostral MFC activation was seen with the relationship between PCE and TSI (Sobel Test statistic = 1.89; p = 0.07).

Additionally, there was a marginally significant difference between mild personality impairment and moderate personality impairment groups in DT ( p = 0.07).

Marginally significant, opioid users had a higher SPD for EO than non-users (p = 0.070).

There was no significant interaction of elevated FLI with age ( p = 0.11) and there was a marginally significant interaction with sex ( p = 0.07).

faecium , there was a marginally significant difference, with males being more resistant ( F = 3.36, d.f. = 1, 83, P = 0.070).

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.

Of the secondary outcomes, the effect was statistically significant for anxiety (Cohen’s d, 0.41; P = .01) and marginally significant for post-traumatic stress (Cohen’s d, 0.35; P = .07) and traumatic grief (Cohen’s d, 0.26; P = .08).

In step 3 models in the BA condition, only change in weight was a marginally significant predictor ( p = .07).

However, the squared term for employer event communication demonstrated a marginally significant and positive relationship with salesperson resilience (B = 0.19, p = .07), which indicates a weak curvilinear relationship between employer event communication and salesperson resilience.

There was a statistically significant main effect of reading ( F (1,41) = 7.91, p < .01, and marginally significant interactions of reading and medial-lateral ( F (4,164) = 2.78, p < .07, HF ε = .53) and reading and anterior-posterior ( F (4,164) = 3.13, p < .07, HF ε = .36).

Next, for the analysis of the mean RTs, a comparable ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of Configuration, F (1, 19) = 3.73, p = .07, ŋ p 2 = .16: RTs were 8 ms faster in response to the Kanizsa diamond versus the Baseline configuration.

Abeta42/40 relationship with DV had scattered cortical distribution; this association was moderate and marginally significant (r=‐0.5; p = 0.07; Figure 1C, top).

The main effect of Group was marginally significant (t (41) = 1.88, p = 0.07, d = 0.59), with RTs in general being somewhat slower in the ASD group (M = 447.0, SD = 130.7) than in the control group (M = 386.0, SD = 66.8).

Follow-up tests showed that the difference between central and noncentral blocks was significant, t (23) = 2.73, p = .01 (one-tailed directional t test: p = .006), 4 Cohen’s d = .55; the differences between central-signal and no-signal blocks, and between no-signal and noncentral blocks were marginally significant; t (23) = 1.91, p = .07 (one-tailed directional t test: p = .035), Cohen’s d = .39, and t (23) = 1.81, p = .08 (one-tailed directional t test: p = .041), Cohen’s d = .37, respectively.

There was a marginally significant reduction in average diarrhea scores of 0.53 units between genotype C relative to genotype A on 10 DPI ( P = 0.07).

We nevertheless observed a marginally significant correlation between days to flowering and silique number within the experimental populations of planting 3 (Spearman r = 0.29, p = 0.07).