“marginally significant”

However, when equal-variance measure was calculated for metacognition in both tasks, there was a marginally significant interaction between group and task on metacognition (mixed effect ANOVA, F(1,45) = 3.16, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.066).The main results from testing our key hypotheses are summarized in Fig. 2 .

Multivariate analyses showed that the PET/CT-guided technique for target volume delineation was an independent prognostic factor for 5-year LRFS, DFS, DMFS, and OS (p = 0.039, p = 0.030, p = 0.035 and p = 0.028, respectively), and was marginally significant in predicting LRRFS (p = 0.080).

Regarding the ejection fraction in model 3, the increase of one point in the adherence questionnaire was associated with an increase of 0.04%, but was marginally significant ( p = 0.08) [ 33 ]. 3.5.

TFM became marginally significant ( p = 0.080).

The results of the comparison analysis between all deaf and hearing children (see Figure 1 ) show significant differences in the inattention subscale ( U = 76; p = 0.007) and conduct disorder subscale ( U = 38; p = 0.000), and a marginally significant difference in impulsivity/hyperactivity ( t = −1.787; p = 0.08).

A two-way ANOVA with 2 levels of movement property (dynamic central + static peripheral, static central + dynamic peripheral) x 2 levels of stimulus orientations (upright central + inverted peripheral, inverted central + upright peripheral) on the proportion of valid trials revealed a marginally significant interaction, F (1,17) = 3.53, p = .08, η p 2 = .17.

By performing a 2 way-ANOVA on expression of BHLH059 , PIF4 and PR1 , SA contents and Pst DC3000 bacterial counts at 0 and 4 dpi in response to genotype and temperature in this set of mutant lines, we found that temperature significantly affects all our variables except bHLH059 expression where it is marginally significant (p-value = 0.08) and bacterial counts at 0 dpi, in line with results shown in S5 Fig .

Cancer increases risks for the e4 allele carriers compared to the non-carriers making them marginally significant, RR = 1.31 (p = 0.080) ( Table 3 ).

The interaction of effort and reachability condition was statistically significant for wanting (random intercept regression, Physical × Weight coefficient = -0.21, p = .03, two-sided; d = 0.24) and marginally significant for liking ratings (Physical × Weight coefficient = -0.13, p = .08, two-sided; d = 0.15).

Moreover, after removing one outlier SNP, the MR-PRESSO shows a marginally significant negative association between VAT and cognitive performance (− 0.17, 95% CI − 0.29 to − 0.04, P = 0.08).

Functional He/Qc ratio deficit of the ACLD limb was only noticeable at 30° and 40°, yet the decrease in the peak moment He/Qc only showed marginally significant difference ( P = 0.080), in consistence with the findings of Gibson et al . 45 .

The effect of cTBS in the preliminary experiment For the preliminary experiment of inpatients, a marginally significant time × group interaction was observed in the YBOCS score ( F = 3.25, p = 0.08; η 2 = 0.07; Fig. 2A ).

There was a marginally significant association between HCC and executive functions (r = ‐0.41, p = 0.08).

Variables with p ≤ 0.001 were reported as highly significant, and those with p ≤ 0.08, also retained in the final model, were reported as marginally significant.

Ordinal logistic regression showed a significant positive association of concordance with symptom severity (Z = 2.59, OR = 1.007 [1.002-1.013], P = .010) and a marginally significant negative association with DPI (Z = −1.78, P = .08).

There was no main effect of group ( F (1, 98) = 1.1, p = 0.29), but a marginally significant interaction between intensity and group ( F (2.6, 260.9) = 2.3, p = 0.08), suggesting that fear recognition across intensities was different for YOs and NCs.

Additionally, there were minimal differences observed between the normalized post-drive postural sway metrics for the closed test track study and this on-road study (only M/L RMS sway velocity was marginally significant at p = 0.08), suggesting that the in-vehicle exposures scale similarly.

Interactions with current IQ were statistically significant ( p < 0.01) for the card-sorting scores and marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for the trail-making scores.

The deleterious effects of negative emotions were not different between eight-year-olds and 12-year-olds ( β = -294.84; SE = 326.7; z = -.9; p =.37) and were marginally significant between 12-year-olds and 14-year-olds (β = 539.5; SE = 304.5; z = 1.77; p =.08).

We observed a marginally significant interaction with self reported hypertension history (P=0.08), and non-significant interactions with residence (P=0.20) and marital status (P=0.14).

The addition of NPA reduced direct transport through the outer compartment (i.e., 3 H-IAA supply to and recovery from the outer compartment; Figure 6 ) at a level that was marginally significant (p-value = 0.08; one-tailed paired t-test comparing IAA and IAA + NPA movement through the outer compartment).

In support of this, we found a marginally significant correlation between changes in motion and changes in the subjective intensity rating ( r = 0.382, p = 0.08).

The residual variances for the high level measures were uncorrelated, although e2↔e3 was marginally significant ( p = 0.08).

Additionally, the interaction effect between the two was marginally significant, α = 0.9 (b = 0.62, t = 1.75, p = 0.08).

time to relapse) were marginally significant, as it can be seen in Figure 2 ( E & G ) (p = 0.08, CI = 90% and p = 0.05, CI = 95% respectively).