“marginally significant”

The group by finger interaction was marginally significant, F (1,26) = 3.28, p = 0.073, indicating that the greater mu-ERD in the ASD group was more prominent for an index movement.

Further, marginally significant result can be observed in lung squamous cell carcinoma and colorectal cancer (p = 0.073, below).

Seeds that were not gut‐passed and where the pulp was removed were 1.3 times more likely to germinate than control seeds (estimate = 0.292, p = 0.073, marginally significant).

Statistical analysis revealed a marginally significant effect of Condition ( F (1,19) = 3.61, p = .073), a main effect of Region ( F (4,76) = 80.73, p <.001), and an interaction between these factors ( F (4,76) = 5.93, p = .002).

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).

All-cause mortality was 17% higher among the medium social class (hazard ratio HR = 1.17, p -value = 0.365), albeit not statistically significant, and 36% higher (marginally significant) among the low social class (HR = 1.36, p = 0.073) as compared to the high social class.

The bursting pressure of bevacizumab wass less than in the sham group and it could be assumed marginally significant ( P = 0.073).

There were increases by a significant 1.025 μV from the first to the third round of learning ( p = .043), a significant 1.147 μV from the first to the fourth ( p = .008), a significant 1.055 μV from the second to the fourth ( p = .013), and a marginally significant .933 μV from the second to the third ( p = .073) (as it can be seen in Figure 5 ).

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).

The paired t-tests showed an opposite, marginally significant pattern of recall effects in the two tasks, with the aphasic patients recalling longer chunks in the sung than spoken task [t(13) = 2.0, p = .073] and the non-aphasic patients recalling longer chunks in the spoken than sung task [t(15) = 1.8, p = .097].

The heterogeneity of the effects from this analysis based on N = 10 comparisons increased (I2 = 43%, moderate inconsistency [ 55 ]; Tau2 statistics for heterogeneity being marginally significant, p = .073).

In 2021, some correlation coefficients increased in magnitude, but were not statistically significant (marginally significant for Fl vuc , r s = − 0.446, p = 0.073 and C vuc , r s = − 0.443, p = 0.075).

A marginally significant effect of load [ F (2,28) = 3.681, p = 0.073] suggested that the single flanker condition elicited the largest amplitude response (7.01 μV), followed by the dual task conditions with set size 4 (5.984 μV) and set size 7 (5.4 μV).

The total net effect of water addition on the bacterial community was marginally significant [standardized coefficient = 0.28, Z value (dividing the regression weight estimate by its standard error) = 1.79, P = 0.073], whereas that of nitrogen addition was non-significant (standardized coefficient = 0.11, Z value = 1.35, P = 0.176).

Impact of the admixed status of individuals on survival time A significant interaction between sex and Structure classes ( p = 0.039) and between sex and ROA ( p = 7.7×10 −3 ), and a marginally significant interaction between sex and NewHybrids classes ( p = 0.073) was found.

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).

The association with age was marginally significant ( t = -1.83, p = .073); the mean age of participants with positive test results was 26.0 years and those with negative results was 24.2 years.

The multivariate interaction effect of Culture × Threat was marginally significant, F (8, 756) = 1.80, p = .073, ηp 2 = .02.

A similar tendency of DBP-change and MAP-change was found for imidapril (ACEI) treatment ( Figure 2C ), in which a marginally significant difference was achieved ( P = 0.073 and 0.075, respectively).

Additionally, after controlling for the effects of perceived burdensomeness, suicide attempts at T1 and T2 positively predicted cyber-victimization at T2 and T3, respectively, but this cross-lagged effect from T1 to T2 was marginally significant ( p = .073).

Similarly, the corresponding ANOVA of the N170 peak amplitude revealed a significant main effect of infant facial expression [ F (2,124) = 5.55, p = 0.008, η 2 = 0.082], with statistically significant larger amplitudes for joy infant faces (-8.23 ± 0.88 μV) than for crying ones (-7.79 ± 0.85 μV) ( p < 0.001) and marginally significant larger amplitudes than for neutral ones (-7.90 ± 0.86 μV) ( p = 0.073).

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).

Regarding financial circumstances, there was a marginally significant difference between groups in PIFS scores ( t 96.05 =1.81; P =.073), with the intervention group reporting slightly higher financial stress (mean 49.60, SD 14.67) than the control group (mean 44.10, SD 16.24), though this difference did not reach statistical significance at the conventional alpha level.

While age and gender were not significantly associated with outcome, the only other parameter that was marginally significant in multivariate analysis was the T-category with T3 having a relative risk of 2.51 compared with T2 ( 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).