“marginally significant”

Crucially, this analysis revealed that, overall, the stress group showed marginally greater learning of probability-based information than the control group (as indicated by the marginally significant GROUP × PROBABILITY interaction, F (1, 51) = 3.45, p = .07, η 2 p = .06; stress group: M random high = 96.34%, M random low = 101.61%, standardized learning score: M = 5.27%; control group: M random high = 97.04%, M random low = 100.89%, standardized learning score: M = 3.85%, see Fig 4 ; for a figure with individual data points, see S5 Fig in S1 File ).

The results demonstrated that 20 Hz stimulation induced marginally significant facilitatory effects on semantic processing ( N = 4, 3 females, mean age = 23 ± 3.5yrs, Wilcoxon signed-rank test: Z = −1.5, p = 0.07) (Fig.

When we stratified the data by sex as a biological variable, we found that the association between hippocampal SGK1 ePRS and depression diagnosis was marginally significant for boys (p = 0.07), and significant for girls (*p = 0.01); while the association between SGK1 ePRS and depressive symptoms was only significant for boys (*p = 0.02; Supplementary Table 3 ).

The group difference was marginally significant when expressing happiness, t (38) = 1.90, p < .07.

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.

Rank also had a marginally significant effect on the highest formant frequencies (F5 min , quadratic relationship, P = 0.07; F6 min , linear relationship, P = 0.05), with males having lower minimum formant frequencies when higher-ranking (Figures 1 and 5 ).

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 ).

As for the explicit measure of math anxiety, a marginally significant positive correlation was found between maternal help and the sum of children’s responses on the AMAS self-report questionnaire ( r = 0.28, p = 0.07).

We found a marginally significant main effect of GROUP, F(1,22) = 3.37, p = 0.07, and a statistically significant interaction between GROUP and BMI, F(1,22) = 4.53, p < 0.05 showing that sensitivity in the yes-no task for women with ANSD is statistically different from that of the controls, as can be seen in Fig. 3b .

At scan 3, the three-group ANOVA was marginally significant (F 2,22 = 3.1, p = 0.07): the 100 μg R848-treated mice had higher temperatures than the control animals ( p = 0.02) but were not different from the 50 μg R848 treated animals ( p = 0.24); temperature did not distinguish the 50 μg R848-treated and control mice at the third scan ( p = 0.25). 3.2.

Compared to emotion words, the difference is marginally significant ( p = . 07 ).

The interaction between the ICD-11 dummy and social health insurance system type is positive and marginally significant for the policy frame ratio ( β = 0.05, SE = 0.03, p = 0.07), suggesting a tendency—though not conclusively established at conventional thresholds—for countries with pluralistic healthcare systems to be somewhat more responsive to WHO-level institutional signals in their policy frame coverage than NHS-type or market-oriented systems.

The main effect for relevance was marginally significant, F (1,37) = 3.45, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.09, with an observed power = 0.44.

Likewise, adding relative risk to a model with only absolute risk improved fit significantly (p<.001), whereas adding absolute risk to a model including relative risk was associated with only a marginally significant improvement in fit (p=.07).

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).

ANOVAs on the mean amplitude of nouns with the factors classifier type, congruency condition, and ROIs revealed main effects of congruency condition ( F = 38.26, P < 0.001) and classifier types ( F = 24.00, P = 0.03), an interaction between the three factors ( F = 127.66, P < 0.001), and a marginally significant interaction between classifier type and congruency condition ( F = 48.00, P = 0.07).

Moreover, the rs16969968 genotype was associated with LC in both former (P<0.0001) and current (P<0.0001) smokers, and a marginally significant trend was observed in never smokers (P = 0.07).

A marginally significant association (β = 0.06 h, 95% CI: −0.004, 0.12, P = 0.07) between TSH level in the second trimester and duration of the first stage of labor was observed, while TSH level in the third trimester was found to be significantly positively associated with duration of the first stage of labor (β = 0.12 h, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.18, P < 0.001).

9.9 months, p=0.15) ( Figure 2B ) and showed a marginally significant prognosis (aHR = 0.7; 95% CI=0.48-1.02; p=0.07) ( Table 2 ).

Similar to cross-frequency PLV findings, we observed a marginally significant relationship between infant theta power and infant-adult PLVs in the free play condition (rho= 0.31, p = .07) but not in the resting state condition (rho=0.24, p = .17).

The P value for the interaction between the assigned study treatment and geographical region was marginally significant ( P = 0.07).

This effect was marginally significant [M warmth appeal = 5.97, SD = 0.72, M absence of warmth appeal = 5.63, SD = 0.97, t (168) = 1.66, p = 0.07].

Participants’ performance was also significantly predicted by In-group Bias at the reference levels (β = 7.98, SE = 3.03, z = 2.64, p < 0.01) and by a marginally significant interaction of In-group Bias with Group Membership (β = −3.52, SE = 1.96, z = −1.80, p = 0.07), which suggests that participants with different strengths of In-group Bias were differently affected by speaker Group Membership.

Results The results of analysis of covariance with repeated measures indicated that although not statistically significant, both groups showed a notable decrease in anxiety with a marginally significant main effect of time ( F 1 =3.485; P =.07; η 2 =0.047) but no significant main effect of group and no significant interaction effect of time with group.

Yet, the counts yielded only a marginally significant difference for n = 75 ( p = .07).