“marginally significant”

When we tried to account for sex differences in self-reports of a good childhood, the partial mediation effect was the same but marginally significant, Δ R 2 = .01, F (1, 698) = 3.35, p < .07.

In the logistic regression model, individuals in the PmPPF group were more likely to have a UIP pattern compared to the non‐PmPPF group, and this effect was marginally significant (odds ratio [OR] = 4.44, P = 0.07) but was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for age and sex (OR = 3.39, P = 0.17).

The analyses showed that the CNA x condition interaction on the error score of absolute task was significant, b = 0.485, SE = 0.198, p = 0.02, [95% CI = 0.092, 0.879], β = 0.305, and that CPA × condition interaction on the error score of absolute task was marginally significant, b = 0.323, SE = 0.177, p = 0.07, [95% CI = −0.674, 0.029], β = −0.260.

There was a marginally significant main effect of incentive ( β = 0.21, t = 1.79, P = 0.07) such that participants perceived more attractiveness bias in the incentive than control conditions.

Carbon gains from tree growth and the recruitment of new trees were 4.4% lower in the interval spanning the 2015–2016 El Niño (mean 2014.3 to 2017.1) compared with the pre-El Niño censuses (mean 2008.4 to 2014.3), a marginally significant difference (2.59 ± 0.15 to 2.48 ± 0.14 Mg C ha −1 y −1 ; paired t test, P = 0.07) ( Fig. 4 A ).

Cingulo-opercular network The first LV was marginally significant ( p = 0.07), but the Pearson-correlation values were significant for both functional-connectivity strength [ r = 0.49, 95% CI (0.34, 0.74)] and functional-connectivity extent [ r = 0.55, 95% CI (0.38, 0.80)].

The results indicate a marginally significant effect of happiness when bargaining power is low, OR = 2.06, p = 0.07, 95% CI (0.94, 4.49), such that happy participants are 2.06 times more likely to make a request (probability of requesting increases to 40.61% when happiness increases by one unit).

Although not significant, the results did reveal a marginally significant decrease in awareness subscale scores ( p = 0.07) between baseline (T0 = 10.73) and mid-intervention (T1 = 10.43), which is in line with the expected direction in changes.

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.

Crucially, the main effect for PMEA level, while not significant at the α = 0.05 threshold, was found to be marginally significant, [ F (1,116) = 3.305, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.03].

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 ).

For women, a marginally significant effect of group was observed, F (1, 42) = 3.48, p = 0.07, ηp 2 = 0.08.

Similarly, the difference in mean BMI of the Δ TTTCT deletion positive relative to the deletion negative East Asian individuals was greater in females than in males ( Table 2 ) and the difference between the genotypes was marginally significant in females but not in males (p = 0.07 for females versus p = 0.45 for males, t test).

The SP scores correlated positively with the BHS (r s = 0.86, p < 0.0005, Spearman’s rank test) and at a marginally significant level with STAI (r s = 0.52, p = 0.07).

Health status was not a significant predictor for vitamin D supplementation anymore, while the financial status was marginally significant ( p = 0.07).

The group difference in marital status was marginally significant ( p = .07) with more Whites (80%) than African Americans (27%) being married.

Multivariate analysis showed no significant associations of any of the variables studied with plasma voriconazole variability or treatment effectiveness, except a marginally significant relationship between normal or only slightly elevated CRP and adequate plasma drug concentrations (MLM, F = 3.22, p = 0.07).

A one-way between-groups ANOVA comparing the interference effect due to unpleasant words for the four groups was marginally significant, F (3, 51) = 2.541, P = 0.07.

Additionally, a decrease in the parasite intensity to marginally significant values ( p < 0.07; df = 34; t = 2.041) occurred.

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 regression analysis showed a significant main effect for spatial ability [β = −0.507, se(HC4) = 0.181, p = 0.007], no main effect of condition [β = 0.703, se(HC4) = 0.399, p = 0.10], and a marginally significant interaction effect between spatial ability and condition [β = 0.224, se(HC4) = 0.123, p = 0.07].

However, the differences were marginally significant ( P = 0.07).

Moreover, compared to the control group, the VI and quadriceps thickness in the intervention group increased ( F = 17.85, P < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.37 and F = 15.62, P < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.34), with a marginally significant increase in the thickness of soleus ( F = 3.59, P = 0.07, partial η 2 = 0.11).

With regard to identifying how well a patient or family can read or write English (patient’s linguistic capacity), there was a statistically marginally significant 6% increase in providers’ ability (53.3% vs. 59.1% comparing the pre- and post-tests, t = 1.50, p = 0.07).

For drinking time, there was a marginally significant trend where Nguni cattle drank 0.9 % more than Bonsmara cattle ( B = 0.9, SE = 0.4, p = 0.07).