“marginally significant”

A repeated measures Two-Way analysis of variances (ANOVA) with task and switch as factors revealed significant main effect of the task [ F (1, 13) = 194.3, P < 0.001], and task switch [ F (1, 13) = 28.1, P < 0.001], with a marginally significant interaction effect [ F (1, 13) = 3.64, P = 0.07].

The overall model explained a marginally significant proportion of variance in VO 2 max, [ R 2 = 0.41, F (2,10) = 3.52, p < 0.07].

This finding was consistently found for the four groups of students, but the difference in LMA between girls and boys in grade 10 was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

The Block × CS Type ANOVA on D1 for acquisition revealed a marginally significant interaction of block and CS type ( p = .070; see Fig. 4 ), comparable with the significant effect in Study 1.

Results for the t-shirt revealed a marginally significant main effect of authorship ( β = 0.457, t = 1.95, p = 0.07), a significant two-way interaction between authorship and loneliness ( β = 0.045, t = 2.46, p < 0.05), and a significant three-way interaction between authorship, loneliness, and product background lighting ( β = −0.066, t = 2.07 , p < 0.05).

NF‐C showed a marginally significant increase from 0 to 6 months ( P = .07) while changes from 0 to 3 months and 3 to 6 months were not significant.

The occurrence of diarrhoea was highest among the goats under 1 year (18%) followed by adolescents (1–2 years; 12%) and adults (more than 2 year: 11%) and the difference was found marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

NRF was marginally significant ( F 2,81 = 2.73, P = 0.07) across the different grassland types, with the highest NRF (mean: 47.19%) in meadow, followed by steppe (mean: 35.20%) and desert steppe (mean: 17.90%; Appendix S2: Table S6 ).

A marginally significant main effect of intentionality, F (1, 62) = 3.37, p = .07, reflected longer response times to foreseen harm scenarios ( M = 6836 milliseconds, SD = 2246) than intentional harm scenarios ( M = 6540 milliseconds, SD = 2612).

Carbon emissions resulting from wildfires showed a marginally significant decreasing trend (−0.001 PgC yr −2 , p = 0.07) from 2012 to 2023 (Fig. 1b ).

In the 15 min testing-onset group, 4 mg/kg significantly disrupted PPI, t (18) = 2.70, p = 0.02, and 1 and 2 mg/kg had a marginally significant effect, maximum t (18) = 1.95, p = 0.07.

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

According to Table 2 , the crude RR illustrated a marginally significant effect of β-glucan ointment on wound healing (RR = 5.65; 95% CI: 0.85, 37.55; p = 0.07); however, RD showed a significant difference between the probability of remission in patients receiving β-glucan ointment and those receiving Stratamed ointment.

In contrast, 2021 showed a trend toward increased mortality relative to 2018, but this result was marginally significant (p = 0.07).

Regarding theta 2 power, the main effects of time [ F (1,58) = 9.89, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.15], site [ F (3,174) = 33.45, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.37], and condition [ F (3,174) = 39.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.40] were observed; importantly, a marginally significant interaction effect of time point × site × condition × group [ F (9,522) = 1.75, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.03] was observed.

Contact with cows with diarrhoea was marginally significant ( p = 0.07) and class remained in the model as a confounder.

A direct and marginally significant association was observed between UPF consumption and z-score of the BMI (p = 0.07).

Significant interactions were found between physical illness and age and physical illness and meaning in life, and the triple interaction was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

Although the log-transformed change in AChE activity was not associated with any of these subclasses, change in BChE activity demonstrated a significant association with average percentage of behavioural symptoms (p=0.04) and a marginally significant association with average percentage of cognitive symptoms (p=0.07).

As illustrated in Table 4 , the low self-control group scored significantly higher than the high self-control group on PMPUS ( t = 7.71, p < 0.001) as well as use patterns of interpersonal ( t = 2.73, p < 0.01), entertainment ( t = 2.65, p < 0.01) and transaction ( t = 2.56, p < 0.05), whereas marginally significant less on information seeking pattern ( t =−1.78, p = 0.07).

Only the between-subgroup comparison of the PM-mediated effect on average HR was statistically significant, and a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.07) was noted for PM 2.5 –SDNN association, probably because of the small sample size.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between stimulus type and laterality [ F (6, 114) = 2.28, P = 0.07].

This was primarily the case for the trustworthiness trait [congruent: Pearson’s r = 0.0076 ± 0.066 (mean ± SD across neurons); incongruent: r = −0.0075 ± 0.062; two-tailed paired t test: t (628) = 2.96, p = 0.003]; the dominance trait only showed a marginally significant difference between conditions (congruent: r = −0.0073 ± 0.060; incongruent: r = 0.0015 ± 0.060; t (628) = 1.82, p = 0.07).

Four studies included only transplant patients 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 ; subgroup analysis produced similar, marginally significant results (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.02, P = 0.07).

Nevertheless, we observed significant or marginally significant main effects of Scene type and Time course ( p < 0.07), indicating inherent differences between the two scene types.