“marginally significant”

There was also a marginally significant increase in between-site dissimilarity in CWM leaf area with increasing environmental distance ( r = 0.17; P = 0.07; Fig. 3 ).

Marginally significant effects of the interaction was also reported for two additional combinations: Sch-58261+ Merck 22 (p = 0.07) and Tozadenant + Radiprodil (p = 0.06).

For stride length variability, the marginally significant main effect of Beat Perception [ F (1,40) = 3.46, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.08] was qualified by a significant Cue x Beat Perception interaction [ F (2,40) = 4.40, p = 0.015, η 2 p = 0.10], as weak beat-perceivers showed greater increases in stride length variability than strong beat-perceivers with low-groove music [preferred: t (40) = 1.84, p = 0.07, faster: t (40) = 2.22, p = 0.03], and metronome cues [preferred: t (40) = 2.79, p = 0.008, faster: t (40) = 1.96, p = 0.05], but not with high-groove music [preferred: t (40) = 0.71, p = 0.48, faster: t (40) = 0.11, p = 0.91].

However, there was a marginally significant effect of grazing on Hemiptera total biomass (p = 0.07; Table 1 ), but this effect was only evident in late July; late-grazed plots had 37% less Hemiptera biomass than control plots, but only 6% less Hemiptera biomass when compared to early-grazed plots ( Table 2 ).

Post hoc analyses with Tukey’s HSD multiple comparisons correction revealed a significant difference between the total word count in letter versus category fluency in controls ( P < 0.001) and (marginally significant) in PSP ( P = 0.07).

The results of the response time ANOVA (i.e., mean release times for correctly executed go trials) indicated a main effect of distance [ F (1,20) = 7.12, p = 0.01, partial eta-squared = 0.26, observed power (alpha 0.05) = 0.72] and a marginally significant session x distance interaction [ F (1,20) = 3.47, p = 0.07, partial eta-squared = 0.15, observed power (alpha 0.05) = 0.43].

Moreover, a marginally significant difference in medical staff or not was observed, χ 2 (1) = 3.75, P = .07.

Participants’ Evaluation An ANOVA on the participants’ evaluation revealed a significant main effect of PDB (M high PDB = 4.26, M low PDB = 4.84; F(1,92) = 7.706, p = 0.007) and marginally significant main effect of the purchase type (M material purchase = 4.35, M experiential purchase = 4.74; F(1,92) = 3.407, 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.

In addition, there was a marginally significant age difference between the two groups, with higher age in HC compared to the PTSD patients (40.58 ± 12.99 vs. 45.47 ± 14.21 years; t = 1.86, p = 0.07, d = 0.35).

The model also shows that the difference between Government media and TV news was marginally significant (t = −1.792, p = .07) with Government having higher estimates than TV news.

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) ).

This dose-response reduction was marginally significant when the treatments were conducted in air ( p = 0.07), but not significant when they were conducted anaerobically. 3.3.

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, 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).

There were significant main effects of cultural group ( F [1, 83] = 5.84, p = 0.02; Cohen’s d = 0.51) and ABMT condition ( F [1, 83] = 4.98, p = 0.03; Cohen’s d = 0.47), but these main effects were qualified by their interaction that was marginally significant: ( F [1, 83] = 3.39, p = 0.07; Cohen’s d = 0.39).

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

In case of prevalence of MU among tertiles of DIL and DII, a marginally significant difference of MU in tertiles of DIL was found (T1: 40.8%, T2: 37.4 and T3: 49.2%, P = 0.07).

saccharum (t 2344 = 1.84, marginally significant at p = 0.07; Fig 3A ).

Importantly, there was also a marginally significant interaction effect between input order and insight ( F (1.29, 77.45) = 3.16, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.05), with participants exhibiting insight having significantly smaller RT differences for inputs 2–4 ( MD = 131.59, p = 0.013), replicating previous results (compare Figures 2A, C ), and marginally significant smaller RT differences for inputs 5–7 ( MD = 85.91, p = 0.09) than those without insight.

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.

However, when solely comparing the two masses with the isotonic baseline in T2, a marginally significant HAPTIC SETTING effect was found [ F (2, 4) = 5.63, p = 0.07].

We observed that being generally obese in comparison with non-obese increased the risk of CV and all-cause mortality in all glucose tolerance statuses; while considering CVD events, only among individuals with T2DM, the presence of general obesity was associated with marginally significant higher risk [1.19 (0.98–1.43); p-value = 0.07].

When this AMF was excluded from the analysis, a comparable marginally significant effect of shoot P GCA on 14 C:*P (F 1,15.4 = 3.9, P = 0.07) was found in species pool 2.