“marginally significant”

There was, however, only a marginally significant reduction in the pro- portion of children who had a blood lead concentration of 15 g/dL or higher (p = 0.075).

The ANOVA pertaining to the ACA revealed a marginally significant Condition main effect [F(1, 29) = 3.41, p = 0.075, μ 2 = 0.11].

Age was a marginally significant covariate F (1,98) = 3.24, p =.075, η 2 = 0.03, suggesting higher overall verbal fluency (mean score from both measurements) in older children ( r =.25, p =.01).

Apart from traditional, all therapy modes at 130% eCAPT drove hyperemia responses significantly greater (p ≤ 0.0046, t 142 ≥ 3.701) than control (no SCS) with an average ΔSBV in the range of 15–20% relative to baseline (note: MF was marginally significant with p = 0.075, t 142 = 2.775, after Bonferroni-Holm correction).

time window, a repeated measure ANOVA revealed a main effect of Laterality [ F (2, 32) = 11.23, p <.001], a marginally significant effect of the variable Intended-interpretation [ F (1, 16) = 3.61, p = .075] and a significant interaction between Intended-interpretation and Anterior-Posterior [ F (2, 32) = 5.84, p <.01].

However the interaction of cue type, dimension and movement type, was marginally significant, F (1, 17) = 3.6, p < 0.075.

Similarly, there was a marginally significant correlation between change in chest expansion on unequal trials and self-attributed emotion in response to the unequal outcome, r = 0.13, p = 0.075, which was of a similar magnitude after controlling for age in a partial correlation, r = 0.12, p = 0.09.

Similar to the other multivariate analyses, participants at or below the poverty line were less likely to engage in risky injection drug use behaviors, although this was marginally significant (OR 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.23-1.07, p = 0.075) (Table 5 ).

The main effect of Group in the ON session was marginally significant, F (1, 54) = 3.31, MSe = 1.24, p = 0.075, suggesting a trend toward poorer recognition memory performance for PD patients compared to controls.

There was a marginally significant interaction effect of condition by time, F (3,108) = 2.371, P = .075, η p 2 = 0.060.

The age of onset showed a negative relationship with the use of novel forms, this effect was marginally significant though (β = −0.2712, SE = 0.1524, z = −1.78, p =.075).

The relationship between the volume of ROIs and the years of driving experience A marginally significant negative correlation was found between the years of driving experience and the volumes of the left middle temporal gyrus (r = −0.418, p = 0.075, Fig. 3A ), the right middle occipital gyrus (r = −0.414, p = 0.078, Fig. 3B ).

The association between prefrontal D1DR availability and caudate-cortical connectivity during working memory persisted after inclusion of caudate D1DR availability as an additional covariate, β = .23, SE = .09, t = 2.46, p = .015, whereas the association between caudate D1DR availability and resting-state connectivity became marginally significant after inclusion of prefrontal D1DR availability, β = .23, SE = .13, t = 1.79, p = .075.

A comparison of the two groups in the spontaneous recovery test showed a marginally significant main effect of group ( F (1,93) = 3.241, p = 0.075; Fig. 2D ), suggesting a more obvious return of the threat memory in the no-support group following threat extinction.

The marginally significant increase in platelet distribution width (PDW%, p = 0.075, d = 0.53, medium effect; see Table 3 ) may reflect increased platelet turnover due to bone marrow stimulation by training, with newly produced platelets being larger and more active [ 50 , 51 ].

Only disease status at the time of COVID-19 was marginally significant for adverse outcome ( P = .075), adjusted by sex (male vs female; P = .0092; Table 2 ).

Regarding the neuropsychological features, notable connections were found as follows: Motor screening exhibited a significant correlation with BIS ( P <0.000), the Gambling test demonstrated a significant correlation with SIS ( P =0.045), Digit span showed a significant correlation with BPAQ ( P =0.042), anxiety-springer-1 exhibited a marginally significant correlation ( P =0.075), and BDI showed a significant correlation ( P =0.000).

On the composite of relational measures, only the relational agency intervention produced marginally significant improvements compared to control (relational agency: β = 0.09, SE = 0.05, P = 0.075; personal agency: β = 0.05, SE = 0.05, P = 0.338).

The probability of BMD loss exhibited marginally significant relationships with disease duration (OR = 1.1, 95% CI: 1 to 1.3, P value = 0.075), serum level of calcium (OR = 0.1, 95% CI: 0 to 1.4, P value = 0.085) and phosphorus (OR = 0.1, 95% CI: 0 to 1.2, P value = 0.072), vitamin D3 (OR = 1, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1, P value = 0.088), and sleep disorders (OR = 4.4, 95% CI: 0.8 to 4.6, P value = 0.088) in RRMS.

Parallel analyses for intranetwork coupling of FPN revealed a marginally significant interaction between Group and Loads ( F (2,688) = 2.60, P = 0.075), and significant main effects of Group ( F (1,344) = 5.10, P = 0.025) and Loads ( F (2,688) = 4.23, P = 0.015) ( Fig. 3E ).

There was a marginally significant main effect of question type, F (1, 69) = 3.26, P = 0.075, η p 2 = 0.05, a significant main effect of affect, F (2, 69) = 3.33, P = 0.042, η p 2 = 0.09, and a significant interaction between both factors, F (2, 69) = 3.74, P = 0.029, η p 2 = 0.10.

A detailed within-group analysis revealed that the HC group showed a marginally significant enhancement of N100 activation for chirp compared to click conditions, localized in the TTG ( t = 3.512, p = 0.075; BA 41).

Habitat area had an additional effect on species richness of all pollinators combined (Figure 2 A, t = 2.84, p = 0.014) and hoverfly abundance (Figure 2 B, t = 2.63, p = 0.021), as well as a marginally significant effect on wild bee species richness (Figure 2 a, t = 1.93, p = 0.075).

In the fully adjusted model, female sex became a marginally significant risk factor (P = 0.075), while all the other analysed variables remained significant.

Similarly, the STARS group demonstrated significant or marginally significant reductions at these time points: 2 months (Estimate = −2.08, SE = 1.16, p = 0.075), 4 months (Estimate = −2.97, SE = 1.16, p = 0.011), and 6 months (Estimate = −4.63, SE = 1.16, p < 0.0001).