“marginally significant”

right ATL) repeated measures ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction between stimulation and laterality [ F (1,10) = 3.93, p = .076; η P 2 = 0.282], and pre-planned comparisons revealed a significant inhibitory effect of TMS on picture naming latency when applied to the left ATL [ t (10) = 3.37, p = .007], but not the right ATL [ t (10) = .47, p = .651].

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).

There were marginally significant differences between the migraine group ( M = 2.60; SD = 0.70) and the nonmigraine group ( M = 2.10; SD = 1.00), t (38) = 3.82; p = .076.

The three‐way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ROI, F (2.07,47.55) = 8.50, p < .001, a marginally significant interaction effect between contrast type and ROI, F (2.76,63.58) = 2.46, p = .076, and critically a significant interaction effect between complexity and ROI, F (2.90,66.59) = 2.77, p = .050; all other effects were not statistically significant ( p s > .21).

However, discipline identification was marginally significant, β = −0.15 (95% CI = −0.31, 0.01), SE = 0.08, p = 0.076 (all other βs < 0.07, p s > 0.101), such that greater identification with one’s discipline was associated with lower stress.

Hypertension was shown to be a marginally significant predictor of mortality ( p = 0.076) (Table 6 in Supplementary File 1 ).

For the TP‐discrimination condition, the interaction between the two factors was marginally significant ( p = .076, Exp. 1B) or significant ( p = .025, Exp. 1C), suggesting that TMS had different effects between M and P conditions.

A significant interaction effect between Group and Emotion revealed that ALEX, as compared to NonALEX, showed significantly stronger FAA in the anger condition [ F (1,46) = 4.302, P = 0.044, η p 2 = 0.086, 95% CI: 0.020, 1.307], and a marginally significant weaker FAA in the sadness condition [ F (1,46) = 3.297, P = 0.076, η p 2 = 0.067, 95% CI: −1.578, 0.081].

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.

There was a marginally significant main effect of age ( F (2, 158) = 2.619, p = 0.076, ηp 2 = 0.032; Fig. 2A ).

We observed a marginally significant round × sex interaction (F(1, 115) = 3.20, p = 0.076, η p 2 = 0.027).

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

We found a marginally significant species effect on metabolic rate (F 2,90.9 = 2.66, p = 0.076), which was driven by the differences between hybrid and collared flycatcher males (est = 1.22+/-0.53, z = 2.30, p = 0.055), and somewhat between hybrid and pied males (est = 0.872+/-0.53, z = 1.65, p = 0.22).

The unadjusted correlation analysis demonstrated a positive and significant correlation between DALYs and natural disasters for females and for both sexes (R = 0.163 and 0.146, p = 0.024 and 0.043), and a marginally significant correlation for males (R = 0.128, p = 0.076).

Importantly, there was also a marginally significant three-way interaction between self-status, other-status, and offer level, F (1,92) = 3.22, p = 0.076, η p 2 = 0.03.

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

However, there was a marginally significant difference between the two groups on the overall MoCA score [ t (103) =1.79, p = .076], and hence, the overall MoCA score was controlled as a covariate for further analyses.

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

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).

For lesion volume, the interaction was marginally significant (F2,5.980 = 4.085, p = 0.076), while for maximum diameter, no significant interaction was observed ( p = 0.589).Given the significant interaction effects observed for superficial diameter, depth, and volume, simple effects analyses were performed.

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).

Subtype was significantly associated with tumor grade ( p = 0.0012) and positive lymph nodes ( p = 0.021), with a marginally significant association of tumor stage ( p = 0.076).

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.

Our analysis of beta values revealed a marginally significant effect of presentation time [ F (2,66) = 2.67, p = 0.076, η p 2 = 0.075], which was qualified by a significant interaction between presentation time and task [ F (1266) = 6.15, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.16].

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