“marginally significant”

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

Levels of perceived stress, t (31) = −1.87, P = .07; and negative affect t (32) = −1.91, P = .06; were marginally significant ( P values < .08) at the follow-up compared to baseline.

We found a marginally significant interaction between session and phase [ F (1, 14) = 3.716, p < 0.08, η p 2 = 0.21].

Furthermore, the main effect of case complexity type was marginally significant ( F (2, 602) = 2.60, p = .08, η p 2 = 0.01): Cases with low complexities were perceived to be cheaper (M = 4.69, SD = 2.33) than the emotionally complex ones (M = 5.12, SD = 2.21, p = .03).

Globulin was marginally significant with NEWS-2 in correlation (r=-0.221, p=0.08), but not when controlling for age and sex (B=-0.145,P=0.292) and did not correlate with CCI, C10YES, or LOS (r=0.098, p=0.453;r=-0.95, p=0.466; r=-0.162, p=0.215).

In the ANOVA, we also found a significant effect of session (F 2, 34 = 4.46; p = .02) and a marginally significant work episode x session interaction (F 4,68 = 2.23; p = .08) on the lapses.

CeMV seropositive dolphins had a marginally significant reduction in the absolute number of CD4+ helper T cells ( p = 0.08).

Results There was statistically significant improvement in intervention physicians' ability to "explain things in a way that was easy to understand" (p = 0.02) and marginally significant improvement in the overall quality of physician-patient interactions (p = 0.08) compared to control group physicians.

Additionally, skin cancer exhibited a marginally significant increase in signal intensity compared to normal skin tissue (1666.25 ± 830 vs. 224.37 ± 95.81, n = 3, p = 0.08).

The reduction in pain intensity was marginally significant after adjusting for baseline values (P = 0.08) and there was no significant difference between the two groups after adjusting for all covariates (P = 0.11).

C) on weight, BMI, fasting glucose, HOMA, and HbA1c, with a marginally significant effect for waist circumference ( P = 0.08).

Age was marginally significant (Wald χ2 = 3.070, p = .080).

However, in infants with birth weight ≥25 th percentile we observed a marginally significant 15 % increase in the risk of pSBI [adjusted RR: 1.15 (0.98–1.35), p = 0.08].

The main pre-post effects of the 1000 ms time bisection task were marginally significant (pre-post: F 1,70 =3.12, p =.08, η 2 = 0.02), while the adapted duration was not ( F 2,70 =0.46, p =.63, η 2 = 0.01).

However, in distinguishing infiltrating ductal tumours from DCIS, ER was also a strong marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.08).

There was also a marginally significant Avoidance × Anxiety effect, p = .08.

For GD, the analyses revealed a non-significant interaction of Grade by salience in the analysis over participants; F 1 < 1, but a marginally significant interaction in the analysis over items; F 2 (2, 356) = 2.6, p = .08.

The high-performing subgroup had marginally significant greater RT Costs on Day 2 [t (22) = -1.79, p = .08, Cohen's d = .-.733] as well as on Day 10 [t (22) = -2.07, p = .05, Cohen's d = .-.846], but not on Day 1, [t (22) = -1.30, p = .21, Cohen's d = .-.533].

all post-VHFS blocks was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), indicating a trend toward overall increase in alpha ERD following VHFS.

However, there was a marginally significant interaction between condition and list [ F (1,27) = 3.27, MSE = 1.80, p = 0.08, = 0.11].

The interaction between environment and exercise was marginally significant, F (1, 27) = 3.34, p = 0.08, and η p 2 = 0.11, suggesting that negative affect decreased more after exercise in the indoor condition than in the outdoor condition, see Table 1 .

Among the three groups of boys, tests of overall mean differences were significant for English achievement, χ 2 (2) = 14.29, p < 0.001, and marginally significant for mathematics achievement χ 2 (2) = 5.13, p = 0.08.

ANOVAs performed for each odor revealed a marginally significant increase in pleasantness for leather [ F (1,39) = 3.22, p = 0.08] and significant increases in pleasantness for the blank pen, lilac, and shampoo odors [ F s (1,39) = 25.45, 7.2, 5.47; p s < 0.001, 0.01, 0.05; η 2 s = 0.39, 0.15, 0.12, respectively; see Figure 1A ].

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].

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).