“marginally significant”

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).

In fact, the difference with the southern Neotropics was not significant (Scheffé contrast, p = 0.73) but the difference with North America was marginally significant (p = 0.07).

Pairwise t -tests showed a significant difference between distance 1 and distance 3 [ t (16) = 2.81, p = 0.01] and a marginally significant difference between distance 2 and distance 3 [ t (16) = 1.95, p = 0.07].

Bd-infection had a marginally significant effect on the community structure of the skin microbiota (PERMANOVA: F 1,23 = 1.73, P = 0.07), while the effect of CFCM treatment was non-significant both alone ( F 6,17 = 0.15, P = 0.57) and in interaction with Bd-infection ( F 3,17 = 0.35, P = 0.94).

In the fully adjusted analyses, the interaction remained statistically significant for housing quality (p=0.02), and was marginally significant for maternal age (p=0.07).

We compared the distributions of these methylation sites to 22,665 controls lacking a consensus site, and obtained marginally significant results (t-test, P = 0.07).

The decrease in total Hg in the brain over time was marginally significant ( p < 0.07), with an apparent T 1/2 of 59.5 ± 24.1 days.

The NSW was larger in the angle task compared with the color task, and this difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.07).

This difference was marginally significant, χ 2 (1, N = 60) = 3.36, p = 0.07.

For the commission error (CE), there was a marginally significant valence effect (F(2,114) = 2.717, p = 0.070).

In the sensitivity analyses, the significant associations between the aforementioned lipids and HUA were not altered [RR: 0.79–1.53; all p < 0.05 except for LPC (20:2), which was marginally significant ( p = 0.07)], after excluding participants taking lipid-lowering medications and those with declined kidney functions (Table S3 ).

Although the main effect of participant group was marginally significant ( F (1,12) = 4.05, p = 0.07), Newman-Keuls tests did not reveal significant differences between the control gains of the two participant groups for either the vertical ( p = 0.14) or the horizontal ( p = 0.13) target motion conditions.

In addition, a marginally significant difference between cultural idioms and novel metaphors was observed ( p = .07) showing that instructive expressions were the most demanding and difficult to process for the children.

Other motivational differences between EAs and MAs were not statistically significant, although a marginally significant trend emerged such that wanting to improve energy was less important for EAs than for MAs (4.04 v. 4.59, F [1, 149] = 3.23, p = .07).

Follow-up analyses revealed that while there were no significant interactions between group and trial quadrant for phases IS and NL (all ps ≥ 0.160), there was a marginally significant interaction for the FT data, F (1,62) = 3.399, p = 0.070, partial η 2 = 0.052.

Furthermore, in Bar and colleagues’ study [ 4 ], they observed that self-criticism predicts insomnia only in individuals with quite high (2SDs above the mean depression symptoms ( β = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.04, 95% CI [0.00, 0.12], and it is marginally significant for those with high (1SD above the mean depression symptoms ( β = 0.03, SE = 0.02, p = 0.07, 95% CI [− 0.00, 0.08], and not significant in those with mean ( β = 0.01, SE = 0.01, p = 0.40, 95% CI [− 0.02, 0.05] and below mean (1SD below the mean levels of depression symptoms ( β = − 0.00, SE = 0.02, p = 0.68, 95% CI [− 0.05, 0.03].

In contrary, lymphovascular invasion was a significant predictor of RFS (HR = 2.229, 95% CI: 1.436–3.461, p < 0.001) and a marginally significant predictor for OS (HR = 1.602, 95% CI: 0.964–2.664, p = 0.070) ( Table 3 ).

Probing the presence of Style differences in Mandarin and English perceivers as a function of Tone, one marginally significant comparison was observed: T3 perceived by English participants ( p = 0.07; p -values >0.25 in other comparisons); their identification of Clear T3 (58.4%, SD = 0.53) was higher than Plain T3 (48.2%, SD = 0.53).

Regarding the contribution of recollection, there was a marginally significant interaction between memory type and retention interval ( F (3,69) = 2.52, P = 0 . 07, η 2 = 0.11).

After genotype classification, we found significant differences in the crude model among genotypes for age ( P = 0.03), FFM ( P = 0.00), BMI ( P = 0.06), RMR per BMI ( P = 0.02), RMR per FFM ( P = 0.05) RMR deviation ( P = 0.01), FBS ( P = 0.04), marriage status ( P = 0.07), economic status ( P = 0.01), and physical activity ( P = 0.04). Also, after controlling for confounders, age remained marginally significant ( P = 0.07) with a higher mean in the group with risk allele group (CC + CG), and in education status ( P = 0.01).

Taxonomic diversity in the vegetated soils was weakly, but consistently, higher compared to bulk soil, and differences in Simpson indices were marginally significant (Mann–Whitney test, P = 0.07, Supplementary Table S1 ).

Serum albumin was a marginally significant negative predictive factor of SRE (HR = 0.59; p = 0.070) by multivariate analysis.

For both respondents with low and high health literacy, the effect of condition became marginally significant (all P =.07) with only the contrasts between audio-based health information and the control condition being significant (all P =.02).

Only following immediate post-reactivation interference, IPIs pattern generated at the very beginning of the retest session on Day3 was significantly modified by continued practice, as indicated by a significant effect of block across groups ( F (4.24,280.00) = 4.68, p = 0.001), a marginally significant block by group interaction ( F (12.73,280.00) = 1.70, p = 0.07) and a significant effect of block only in the ReactInt group in the subsequent post hoc analyses ( F (3.59,68.12) = 8.37, p < 0.001; F (3.00,42.01) = 0.50, p = 0.68; F (4.05,77.00) = 0.37, p = 0.83; F (3.32,4646) = 1.56, p = 0.21, ReactInt, React8hInt, ReactNoInt and NoReactNoInt group respectively).

Moreover, fatalistic determinism is negatively correlated with the internal locus of control in the FAD-J, but not significant in the FAD+ (the difference is so-called marginally significant, Z = 1.831, p = 0.07).