“marginally significant”

The PGLMM model again had a slightly lower slope, likely due to the inclusion of within‐species variation, which had a marginally significant effect ( ß = −0.261, p = 0.072).

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant interaction for both block and group ( F (10,330) = 1.733, p = 0.072).

We incorporated Response (lever, food cup) factor into the analysis above maintaining devaluation effect reported above and revealing a marginally significant Phase by Response interaction ( F (1,14) = 3.80, p = 0.072).

Specifically, greater attachment security, β = 0.30, p = 0.009, the interaction between child attachment security and parental scaffolding, β = 0.23, p = 0.048, and child age, β = 0.02, p < 0.001, predicted greater exploration in children, whereas the main effect of parental scaffolding was marginally significant, β = 0.20, p = 0.072.

The interaction effect between eccentricity and compatibility was marginally significant [ F (1, 30) = 3.48, p = .072, η p 2 = 0.10].

13.37%, P = 0.0025) and a marginally significant increase in Tregs (FOXP + CD25 + CD4 + ) cells (0.86% vs. 5.11%, P = 0.072) in ITGAX -OE tumors than in the control tumors (Fig.

The Session × Group interaction accounted for marginally significant variance in the FFR strength at F0 [μV; b = 0.0037, t (48) = 1.77, p = 0.0721]; regressions conducted on each group showed that following training, choir participants demonstrated improvements in the neural representation of pitch [ b = 0.0033, t (29) = 2.60, p = 0.009], while control participants did not demonstrate significant changes [ b = −0.00034, t (19) = −0.21, p = 0.8346; see Table 1 ].

Multivariate analysis identified number of CD163 + CD204 + cells as a marginally significant prognostic factor for progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.97; P = 0.0722) (Table 2 ).

In particular, all variables that were not significant in the original model were again not significant in the new model, and Flanker reaction time congruency cost was marginally significant ( β = 0.34410, SE = 0.18445, t = 1.866, p = .0723).

However, there was a marginally significant association between species and O. ophidiicola detection ( p = 0.0724; see Table S6 ). 4.

While there was no difference between the noise-normalized pattern correlation and 1 for the near voxels ( t (9) = 1.942, p = 0.958, d = 0.614; corrected), the difference was marginally significant for the far voxels ( t (9) = 2.029, p = 0.073, d = 0.642; corrected), with a significant difference between the near and far voxels ( t (9) = 2.52, p = 0.033, d = 1.06).

In contrast, among participants without MS (n = 1,880), the magnitude of the association between SIRI and MACE risk was strongest in the SIRI Q2 group, which exhibited a significant increase in MACE risk (HR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.2-2.60, P < 0.001); the associations were gradually attenuated in the higher quartiles, with marginally significant risks observed in SIRI Q3 (HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.97–2.06, P = 0.073) and SIRI Q4 (HR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.01–2.12, P = 0.043).

Examination of intervention effects in relative theta power revealed a marginally significant main effect of group ( F (1, 69) = 3.32, p = .073, η 2 p = .063).

In terms of speckle-tracking echocardiography, mechanical dispersion and radial strain at the level of papillary muscles (mid-RS) are marginally significant between the adverse and reverse remodelling groups ( p = 0.073 and p = 0.064, respectively).

A significant interaction effect for Mindfulness × APOE ε 4 status was found in the younger group ( β = 0.525, p = 0.016), while the older group demonstrated a marginally significant interaction for mindfulness ( β = 0.211, p = 0.073).

Recovery and mortality rates presented better results in the North than in the South arm: recovery rate 128% versus 67% higher at Day 14 (p=0.009) and 81% versus 51% at Day 28 (non-significantly; p=0.66), and all-cause mortality rate 83% versus 78% lower at Day 14 (marginally significant; p=0.073) and 78% versus 72% at Day 28 (p=0.004).

However, a separate model with God salience, religious affiliation (0: nonaffiliated; 1: affiliated), and their interaction as predictors revealed a significant main effect of God salience ( B = 0.88; Wald = 7.20, P = 0.007), an insignificant main effect of religious affiliation ( B = 1.082; Wald = 2.38, P = 0.12), and a marginally significant interaction term ( B = −0.81; Wald = 3.22, P = 0.073).

At the Pz electrode, a marginally significant main effect of image category was found in the female group: Females: F (2,12) = 3.29, p = 0.073, η 2 p = 0.35.

The difference between the highly systematic condition and the unsystematic condition was clearly significant ( p < .001) even after controlling for reading time, whereas the difference between the highly systematic and the somewhat systematic condition was marginally significant ( p = .073).

After correction for multiple comparisons, “Production Occupations” remained significant in unadjusted models (p = 0.024) and was marginally significant in adjusted models ( p = 0.073).

GI has a statistically significant effect, above and beyond the role of sex, on all the PYD variables ( p’ s < 0.05), and a marginally significant effect on Empathy ( p = 0.073).

Increased PRSP was associated with a significantly lesser likelihood of experiencing electric shocks (AOR = 0.362, 95% CI: 0.078, 1.673; p = 0.193), radiation exposure (AOR = 0.738, 95% CI: 0.136,0.934, p = 0.04), fire explosion (AOR = 0.075, 95% CI: 0.018, 0.314; p <0.001), hand cuts (AOR = 0.783, 95% CI: 0.625, 0.98; p = 0.034) and marginally significant with head cuts (AOR = 0.761, 95% CI: 0.565, 1.026; p = 0.073).

Strikingly, only friend support retained a marginally significant buffering trend specifically against DSO symptoms ( p = .073).

Following up a marginally significant interaction Cognitive Demand * ADHD on target-N2 amplitude ( F 1,68 = 3.323; p = .073; η 2 p = .047) showed that children with ADHD (ADHD-only and ADHD+autism) had reduced target- N2 during high-demand trials ( M = −2.987 μV; SE = 0.344 μV), compared to children without ADHD (NT and autism-only: M = −4.043 μV; SE = 0.387 μV; p = .048).

Furthermore, participants who had used dietary supplements in the past 12 months showed a marginally significant association with a more positive attitude (β = 0.182, p = 0.073).