“marginally significant”

A binomial test contrasting the observed distribution of p values against a null of .33 power was statistically significant ( p = .032) for the main test and marginally significant ( p = .076) for the robustness test, confirming this extreme flatness.

However, for participants who read-aloud with the child, there was a positive and marginally significant relationship between amount of extra-textual talk and participants’ positive mood scores ( r =0.58, p =. 076).

The expression of LfR protein in the subventricular zone (SVZ) of the high LF group was 42% and 38% higher than that of the low LF group and the control group, respectively, but the overall statistical analysis between the groups was marginally significant (main effect p = 0.076).

A two-way rmANOVA showed marginally significant effects of time (F = 3.38, p = 0.076) and interaction of time × condition (F = 2.70, p = 0.084), presented in Figure 4 .

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.

Notably, the unadjusted model showed a marginally significant trend toward reduced mortality risk with higher CMI ( P = .076), but this association was completely attenuated after adjustment for demographic and clinical covariates.

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).

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

For the HLG, the only significant N400 difference was for HTCatE, which was marginally significant after correction ( P = .076).

The mentioned decrease was marginally significant in taekwondo players after dough consumption ( P = 0.076), whereas there was a non-significant difference after carbohydrate drinking periods.

In Block 2, by contrast, infants in the No Label condition exhibited more looking at the low-variability part than those in either the Label (marginally significant: F (1,47) = 3.298, p = .076) or the Visual-only condition (approaching significance: F (1,47) = 2.667, p = .109).

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).

Considering each AOI separately, the planned t -tests revealed a marginally significant effect for the Open posture judges ( M = 1.3, SD = 0.9) fixating fewer times at the hands than the Closed posture judges ( M = 2.2, SD = 1.6), t (30) = −1.84, p = 0.076, d s = −0.65, 95% CI (−1.36, 0.07) (square root-transformed data).

Given the marginally significant effects of chlorpromazine equivalents ( P = 0.076) and gender ( P = 0.057) on negative symptoms in the univariate analyses, these variables were subsequently included in the multiple linear regression analyses.

This association was marginally significant when sex (β = -0.224; p = 0.076) and cortisol awakening (β = -0.252; p = 0.089) were added to the covariates.

When the RCTs were stratified according to the duration of supplementation, there was no significant effect in the subsets of studies lasting <8 weeks (WMD: −2.18 mm Hg, 95% CI: −5.00, 0.64, P =0.130), while a marginally significant reducing effect was observed in trials with ≥8 weeks of follow‐up (WMD: −3.57 mm Hg, 95% CI: −7.51, 0.37, P =0.076).

Arousal and valence were correlated ( r = 0.18, p < 0.001), but surprisingly, arousal did not correlate with any other variables ( p s > 0.248), however the association between arousal and the probability of conception was marginally significant ( r = 0.05, p = 0.076).

Consistently, significant positive correlations were found between PANSS-G and the Frontal-Inf-Orb-R (r = 0.55, p = 0.006), PANSS-G and the Rolandic-Oper-R (r = 0.44, p = 0.047), and marginally significant correlation between PANSS-N and the Rolandic-Oper-R (r = 0.38, p = 0.076).

A cluster at 216–286 ms, reflecting a frontocentral positivity typical of a P3a response, was marginally significant (16/30 sensors, p = 0.076).

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).

In the GB, a marginally significant, positive relationship was observed between Korarchaeota abundance and temperature (rho = 0.406, p = 0.076, n = 20) further showing that the prime habitat of Korarchaeota is at or near high temperature spring sources.

The intercept is negative and marginally significant ( P = 0.076), indicating a potential baseline effect.

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.

However, when we probed this three-way interaction, the two-way interaction between actor suppression and sexual desire was non-significant in Sample 1 ( b = .01, SE = .01, t (1222.63) = .71, p = .477, 95% CI [−.02, .03]) and marginally significant in Sample 2 ( b = −.03, SE = .02, t (1336.46) = −1.77, p = .076, 95% CI [−.07, .003]).

A two-factor ANOVA indicated a marginally significant main effect of caffeine ( F (1,95) = 3.214, p = 0.076), no significant main effect of taurine ( F (1,95) = 0.061, p = 0.806), but no significant interaction between caffeine and taurine ( F (1,95) = 0.047, p = 0.829) on the mean ambulatory speed traveled in the novel tank test ( Fig. 1B ).