“marginally significant”

One-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of programming ability on accuracy [ F (1, 32) = 3.867, p = 0.075, η p 2 = 0.260].

Additionally, only T category was marginally significant in predicting LRRFS (p=0.075). 3.

The differences were marginally significant at activation (5476.9 vs. 6044.5, p = 0.0751) but became highly significant at 3–6 months (5004.5 vs. 6540.7, p < 0.0001) and ≥ 1 year (4916.1 vs. 6044.4, p = 0.0120).

We found a marginally significant effect of onset probability for valid cues (mean Δ proportion correct = 0.0276, t (6) = 2.15, two-tailed p = 0.0753), but no evidence for an impact of onset probability for invalid cues (mean Δ proportion correct = − 0.0117, t (6) = − 1.08, two-tailed p = 0.3214).

There was a marginally significant increase in theta-band phase synchronization ( P = 0.0755) after the 8-week MBCT, and we further observed that the markedly increased theta-band phase synchronizations were mainly located in the right hemisphere ( P < 0.05, FDR corrected; Figure 2 ).

Compared to the HCC tissues, we also found the methylation levels of CpG 7 tend to be further decreased in the PVTT tissues and the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.0756).

In terms of peak displacement, the difference observed between static and dynamic expressions (1.33 cpf) was marginally significant [95% CI (−1.66, 1.66), p = 0.0759].

Comparing the TIR/O Group to the XLH Group At the distal radius, compared with the XLH group, the TIR/O group showed significant or marginally significant differences only in a few trabecular parameters ( Table 2 and Supplementary Figure S1A ), such as lower trabecular number (-28.6%, p = 0.076), greater trabecular inhomogeneity (79.0%, p = 0.049), and larger trabecular separation (51.2%, p = 0.074).

However, there was a marginally significant positive relationship between perceived pandemic threat at Time 1 and SWB at Time 2 ( β = 0.03, s.e. = 0.02, p = .076).

Follow-up analyses showed the expected anterior distribution of the effect, as it was restricted to frontal sites, F(1,16) = 11.769, p = .003, η2 = .424 (marginally significant at central, F(1,16) = 3.592, p = .076, η2 = .183, and parietal sites, F(1,16) = 3.604, p = .076, η2 = .184).

Results in Table 4 indicated that gender differences had a statistically marginally significant influence on the participants' TORP: χ 2 (1, N = 262) = 3.147, p = . 076.

The interaction effect between PE treatments and sampling dates was marginally significant for the Shannon ( P = 0.076) and significant for the Simpson ( P = 0.036) diversity indices of fungal communities ( Table 1 ), suggesting that the effect of the precipitation manipulation of fungal communities was dependent on the level of precipitation received and on the soil temperature and plant growth stage.

Significant differences were observed among the five groups in terms of their evaluations of the morality of doctors, p = .003, and marginally significant differences were observed in terms of competence evaluations, p = .076.

43.5%), with a marginally significant difference likely attributed to the small sample size of the study (p = 0.076).

The CVR was lower in patients with chronic infarction but was marginally significant (29.6. ± 39.1% vs. 38.9. ± 28.7%, respectively, p = 0.076).

This study found no influence of the Consciousness variable on anxiety, and the effect of the Lack of Confidence variable became marginally significant ( p = 0.076) in a stepwise regression.

The LMM on the (inverse) RT revealed a non-significant main effect of Group (χ 2 (2) = 0.67, p = 0.716), a significant main effect of Location (χ 2 (2) = 17.95, p < 0.001), and a marginally significant interaction between Group and Location (χ 2 (4) = 8.46, p = 0.076).

The preliminary analyses revealed a marginally significant interaction ( p = .076) between time-window (M150 and M350) and age group (4-month-olds and 8-month-olds), and a significant interaction ( p = .036) between condition (speech and rotated speech) and sex (girls and boys).

False alarms Finally, our analysis of false alarm rates (response errors made to face fragments) revealed a marginally significant effect of participant age (F (2, 53) = 2.71, p = 0.076, partial η 2 = 0.093).

However, only a marginally significant difference was found in the CST group ( p = 0.076), with a small effect size (r = 0.348).

The difference between Watch Period 1 and Watch Period 2 ( M = 62.46%, SD = 16.7%) was marginally significant, t (28) = 2.37, SEM = 2.83, p = .076, and the remaining comparison (2 vs. 3) was not significant ( p = .662).

In the analysis of RAPM_set 1, a marginally significant difference between the pretest and posttest ( p = 0.076, PP = 0.96) and a significant difference between the pretest and the follow-up session ( p = 0.047, PP = 0.97) were found only for the atDCS+WMT group, with no significant group differences in each moment ( p = 0.12, PP = 0.92).

Similarly, there was a marginally significant interaction between precipitation and N MASS ( P = 0.076; Table S9 ): biomass and N MASS were negatively associated at low precipitation but not at high precipitation ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.124, respectively; Table S10 ).

The difference between left and right-hemispheric peri-central ROIs (left > right) was marginally significant for uni-manual words in right-handers ( p = 0.076), but not for left-handers ( p = 0.11).

[ 5 ], HHT was marginally significant ( P = 0.076 and P = 0.094, respectively).