“marginally significant”

Air temperature had a small but non-zero effect on the foraging probability of males with a marginally significant positive linear relationship (effective degrees of freedom [edf] = 0.71, χ 2 = 4.33, p = 0.07), whereas the effect was small and non-significant in females (edf = 0.41, χ 2 = 0.67, p = 0.23) (Fig. 5 C).

Although the effects of anxiety on interaction change were not significant for both model 1, β model1 = 0.085, p = 0.089, for model 2, β model1 = −0.088, p = 0.073, the differences between the two path coefficients were significant, p <0.05 (The difference of these two path coefficients in the EFC model was marginally significant, p = 0.07.).

Notably, a marginally significant effect of self-defining gender with Self—Gender Identity Match emerged (B = -0.013, SE = 0.009, t (8781) = 1.44, p = .07), indicating that stronger self-definingness of gender is associated with faster responses to traits overlapping with the self and the female identity (in comparison to a Self-Identities Mismatch).

Infants in the 2 groups were comparable on demographic parameters, except for a marginally significant difference in the need for resuscitation between infants born to advanced age mothers and the comparison group (7.2% vs 3.6%, P = .07).

Women also reported to feel more Jittery after presentation of Sadness compared to Compassion excerpts, while this comparison in men was marginally significant (p = 0.07).

FRS significantly differed across diagnostic groups ( p < 0.001), and anti‐hypertension medications were marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

There was also a marginally significant interaction in year 2017 ( β = 0·03; Z = 1·85, P = 0·07).

For change adaptive behavior, the between-company variance was very significant, χ 2 (42) = 68.43, p = 0.006, ICC 1 = 0.04, while the between-department variance reached a marginally significant, χ 2 (65) = 82.13, p = 0.07, ICC 1 = 0.06.

However, the ADE of MSDP on epilepsy incidence turned to be marginally significant ( p = 0.07) under these conditions.

The numbers of attacks were low in summer ( n = 3) and higher in spring ( n = 10), autumn ( n = 12) and winter ( n = 14), and this difference was marginally significant ( χ 2 = 7.051, p = 0.070).

Maternal age showed a marginally significant protective association (OR=0.91, P=.070).

However, the interaction between perceptions of extreme weather and political ideology was not significant for worry, B Ideology*EWPerceptions = -.01, SE = .01, p = .16, and was marginally significant for beliefs about the cause of climate change, B Ideology*EWPerceptions = -.02, SE = .01, p = .07.

However, for the day 28 linear regression model without lab values, treatment group was marginally significant in the full model (β = 0.86, p = 0.07) (S4 Table in S1 File ).

The ANOVA yielded a predicted Emotional Intensity × Initial Implementation interaction that was marginally significant [ F (1, 27) = 3.36, P = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.11; Figure 2 , Supplementary Table S1 for all effects].

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.

There was a marginally significant two-way interaction between experimental condition and EQ, F (2, 58) = 2.87, p = 0.07, ɳ p 2 = 0 . 09 , and a significant three-way interaction between experimental condition, EQ, and region, F (4, 116) = 4.90, p < 0.01, ɳ p 2 = 0 . 14 .

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

Interestingly, a mixed-design ANOVA on the JNDs revealed a marginally significant interaction between group and standard weight, F (2,52) = 3.19, p<0.07, η 2 p =.09.

All of the remaining single sample showed a marginally significant editing level when compared to the 12 honeybee workers (1 versus 12 comparison, P = 0.07).

For the P2 component, repeated-measures ANOVA confirmed a marginally significant main effect of salience, F (1, 25) = 3.68, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.13, in the absence of a significant congruency effect, F (1, 25) = 0.04, p = 0.85, η 2 p = 0.001.

When corrected for age and APOE genotype, only the LC4 remained statistically significant, whereas LC1 was marginally significant ( P =0.07).

pH was marginally significant ( F = 2.1, p = 0.07), with a smaller contribution compared to other variables (Table S9 C).

The analysis revealed marginally significant main effects of Dimension, F 1,16 = 3.75, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.19, and congruency, F 1,16 = 3.76, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.19, and a significant interaction between the two factors, F 1,16 = 9.28, p = 0.008, η p 2 = 0.37.

Regarding the two pandemic-related beliefs, government efficacy accounted for a significant addition (0.8%) of the variance in PSU (Δ F = 4.82, p = 0.03) beyond the variance explained by demographic variables; in contrast, self-efficacy only explained a marginally significant increment (0.6%) of the variance in PSU (Δ F = 3.34, p = 0.07).

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.