“marginally significant”

The results indicate a marginally significant effect of happiness when bargaining power is low, OR = 2.06, p = 0.07, 95% CI (0.94, 4.49), such that happy participants are 2.06 times more likely to make a request (probability of requesting increases to 40.61% when happiness increases by one unit).

There were significant differences between the four treatment groups in lesion numbers (P < 0.001), marginally significant reductions in tumor burden (P = 0.07), and no statistically significant differences in BCC area (P = 0.37).

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 ).

Among individuals with education below college level, those who experienced problems with care coordination used an average of 0.51 (18.8%) more provider-facing eHealth activities than those who did not experience such problems, showing a marginally significant increase (beta=1.19, P =.07).

Adult return rate between years At Shetland, 86% ( n = 43) of the birds breeding in 2009 returned in 2010; return was significantly and negatively related to ∑BDE (Logistic regression: χ 2 1, 49 = 5.72, P = 0.007; estimate = -2.27 ± 0.94 SE; Fig 7 ), and marginally significant for ∑OC (χ 2 1, 49 = 3.02, P = 0.07; estimate = -1.08 ± 0.62 SE; Fig 7 ).

The analyses showed that the CNA x condition interaction on the error score of absolute task was significant, b = 0.485, SE = 0.198, p = 0.02, [95% CI = 0.092, 0.879], β = 0.305, and that CPA × condition interaction on the error score of absolute task was marginally significant, b = 0.323, SE = 0.177, p = 0.07, [95% CI = −0.674, 0.029], β = −0.260.

There was a marginally significant difference between the two cohorts in the number of perspectives represented [ t (7.30) = 2.33, p = 0.07, two-tailed, adjusted for unequal variances], although a Levene's test showed that the first cohort signers were significantly more variable in their performance ( F = 13.75, p < 0.01).

Analyzes of the correlation between Ct values and DSO by Spearman's correlation test showed a 'marginally significant' correlation ( p ‐value = 0.07).

Carbon gains from tree growth and the recruitment of new trees were 4.4% lower in the interval spanning the 2015–2016 El Niño (mean 2014.3 to 2017.1) compared with the pre-El Niño censuses (mean 2008.4 to 2014.3), a marginally significant difference (2.59 ± 0.15 to 2.48 ± 0.14 Mg C ha −1 y −1 ; paired t test, P = 0.07) ( Fig. 4 A ).

The analysis shows a marginally significant difference between the two patterns ( t ( 1 , 57 ) = 1.83 , p = .07 , Cohen’s d = 0.24 ; Figure 12(b) ).

Encoding of novel faces vs same faces Only one channel showed marginally significant difference in HbO between the encoding of novel and same faces where HbO increase was higher for the novel faces (ch 1; paired t-test, FDR corrected p-value = 0.07) (Fig. 1 ).

Those high on group level self-investment showed marginally significant favoritism toward the in-group, b = −0.01, SE = 0.01, Wald χ 2 = 3.30, P = 0.07, whereas those low on group-level self-investment showed favoritism toward the out-group, b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, Wald χ 2 = 4.82, P = 0.03.

We observed that CDPCP treatment resulted in a lower rate of kidney damage in Oct1+/+ mice than in Oct1-/- mice, and the rate difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

After covariate adjustment, the association between water As and Full-Scale raw scores was marginally significant (B = −1.06, p < 0.07), explaining 0.72% of the variance in that outcome; water As contributed significantly to Processing Speed raw scores (B = −0.54, p < 0.05), explaining 0.81% of the variance in that measure.

Marginally significant differences were observed in the distribution of the time elapsed since the last cigarette (p=0.07) and the FTND score (p=0.067) among the 5 groups.

The results showed that this indirect effect was marginally significant when emotion suppression was low ( indirect effect = 0.022, SE = 0.01, p = .07, 95% CI [-0.027, 0.032]), but not significant when emotion suppression was high ( indirect effect = 0.002, SE = 0.02, ns ), and the difference between these two indirect effects was significant ( indirect effect = − 0.019, SE = 0.01, p < .05, 95% CI [-0.037, − 0.001]), providing support for the moderated mediated effect.

And the stemness markers showed a marginally significant enrichment in the gene sets ranked by the log FCs between stem-like and other cells (Fig. 6 P, p = 0.07), which showed the difference of stemness between the two groups at the transcriptome level.

Besides replicating the non-significant effect of movement order already observed in the former ANOVA, this analysis indicated a significant main effect of target distance (F (1,28) = 7.03, p = 0.01; Cohen’s d = 0.5) and a marginally significant distance by eccentricity interaction (F (1,28) = 3.4, p = 0.07; LSD post-hoc comparisons: FP < NP, FC and NC, all p < 0.05).

Meanwhile, PMW in the molar region at the level of CEJ was marginally significant ( p = 0.070) and PMW in the premolar region at the level of CEJ was insignificant between the two groups ( p = 0.228).

In the subgroup of patients who were physically active during the initial 2-year period (224 individuals, 34.4%), loosing ≥5% of body weight was associated with markedly significant reductions, by 80% and 79%, in risk for total CVEs and MACEs, respectively, and a marginally significant ( P =0.07) risk reduction of 72% for cardiovascular death in relation to the subgroup that gained weight.

During extinction, there was a significant main effect of Stimulus F (2, 36) = 5.19, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.22 and Time, F (1, 18) = 88.30, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.83, and a marginally significant Stimulus × Time interaction, F (2, 36) = 2.85, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.14, suggesting that the decrease in FPS differed between the CSs from early to late extinction.

However, the LC + L.r group displayed a higher body weight compared to the LC group, although this difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.07, Fig. 5 C).

The main effect of direction consistency was marginally significant ( M = 18.3 ms), F (1, 13) = 4.0, p = 0.07.

The interaction effect ( diatom × basin ) was marginally significant (p < 0.07; Table 1 ), with the difference between HD and LD being more pronounced for BP than BoS amphipods (Fig. 3 ).

Results showed that the effect size of PATHS at follow-up was 0.10, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).