“marginally significant”

The main effect of the DQB1*0201 allele in the factorial mixed-model ANOVA was marginally significant (p = 0.08) with serum CTLA-4 levels being lower in individuals with a DQB1*0201 allele (mean = 1.8 ng/ml) than individuals without a DQB1*0201 allele (mean = 2.4 ng/ml).

control) on specific fears showed a marginally significant effect of risk communication; F (2, 703) = 2.48, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.007, d = 0.17.

In the stratum radiatum, the difference was marginally significant ( F 1,8 = 3.94, P = 0.08).

Allium extract group showed lower values of body weight than Antibiotic one, although this difference was marginally significant (LSD Posthoc test; p = 0.080).

That ANOVA produced a main effect of trial type [ F (2,38) = 328.49, P < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.95], a marginally significant effect of repetition level [ F (1,19) = 3.33, P = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.15] and a marginally significant interaction between trial type and repetition level [ F (2,38) = 2.42, P = 0.10, η p 2 = 0.11].

In contrast, a marginally significant difference was noted in the prevalence of all-cause hospitalization (66.2% vs. 53.3%, P = 0.08) and cardiovascular hospitalization (20.3% vs. 10.5%, P = 0.07) between the elderly and non-elderly groups.

More importantly, the interaction between the PSA condition and target group was marginally significant ( F = 1.88, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.99; p = .08), suggesting that the effect of PSA condition on the dependent variables differed between the target and non-target groups.

This attenuation was marginally significant ( P = 0.08).

Analysing each of the soundscape scales individually through a factorial ANCOVA test found a marginally significant result for the calmness scale ( df = 1, F = 9.91, p = 0.08).

The statistics is marginally significant (two side rank sum test p = 0.08).

Mean sICAM-1 concentrations were marginally significant between AMI patients and healthy controls (p-value = 0.08), whereas mean concentrations of sICAM-1 among different blood groups were similar (p-value = 0.539) ( Table-III ).

Thunder Bay, on the western shore, had shoreline temperatures that were marginally significant from 100 km reference sites ( p = .08).

Concerning avoidance behavior, there was only a marginally significant, but inconclusive effect of health anxiety during COVID-19 on avoidance behavior in relation to other diseases ( b = 0.03, 99% CI [−0.01, 0.06], p = 0.08).

Results for the low reactive group revealed only a marginally significant main effect of set size, F (3123) = 2308, p = 0.080, and results for the high reactive group revealed no significant effects ( Figure 7 ).

The type of justification was found to be marginally significant in RS, F (2, 158) = 2.52, p = .08, η2 = .031.

Residence in an area of higher socioeconomic vulnerability was a marginally significant predictor, OR (95% CI ) = 3.1 (0.9–11.0), p = .08.

There was a marginally significant difference in perceptions of barriers (p=0.08), with males perceiving slightly more barriers than females.

The results indicated a marginally significant difference in HER2+ between the low-to-intermediate and high-to-very-high-risk groups ( p = 0.08), with a significant difference observed within subcategories ( p < 0.05).

First, as shown in Model 1 of Table 2 , upon controlling for demographic variables, leader autonomy-oriented help was positively associated with member self-efficacy (γ = 0.30, p < 0.001), while the effect of leader dependency-oriented help on member self-efficacy was marginally significant (γ = 0.06, p = 0.08).

In the main effects–only model, the intervention had a marginally significant effect on medication adherence (p = 0.08) ( Table 3 ) .

For perceived emotional challenge, the differences were marginally significant [ t (26) = 1.84, p = 0.08, 95% CI (–0.06, 1.03)], with interactivity enhancing the experience, being higher in Gameplay ( M = 4.31, SD = 0.63) than in GameWatch ( M = 3.83, SD = 0.75).

Correlations with pathogen-related marker diversity Molecular marker diversity detected on surfaces showed marginally significant positive correlations with forest cover (r 2 = 0.42; p = 0.08) and grassland (r 2 = 0.41; p = 0.09).

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).

3B ), with the P -values of the interaction between location and food was marginally significant ( P = 0.08).

In the no-tone condition, the difference in the congruity effect between the two groups was marginally significant [ F (1, 26) = 3.4, MSE = 1,725, p = 0.08], whereas in the tone condition, the difference in the congruity effect between the two groups was significant [ F (1, 26) = 7.73, MSE = 1,725, p < 0.01].