“marginally significant”

After adjustment for baseline scores, this difference in recovery between the conditions, as indicated by the interaction between scene type (green, built) and block (3, 5) on RSA, was marginally significant, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.1.

Post-hoc analysis identified a marginally significant reduction in negative PANAS score over time in the MBSR group, specifically between session 2 and session 6 ( β = −5.42, SE = 1.93, p = .08; Supplementary Fig.

Predictors of Carcass Price The interaction model (the most parsimonious) showed evidence of a marginally significant positive association between price and palatability ( β = 0.11, SE = 0.06, p = 0.08; Fig. 5 a), suggesting that, on average, the meat of highly palatable species costs more per kg.

Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change There was a marginally significant increase in change efficacy ( p < 0.08) but not change commitment ( p = 0.66) (see Table 3 ).

The interaction between duration and sex was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), with a positive association in males (β = 5.5; p = 0.02) but not in females (β = 0.9; p = 0.41).

Additionally, marginally significant associations with maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein levels were observed in both full-term (β = –0.02, 95% CI: –0.05 to 0.01; P = 0.08) and preterm infants (β = –0.12, 95% CI: –0.23 to 0.01; P = 0.05).

The analysis of left-hand performances indicated significant main effects of Motor (F(1,22) = 8.9, p <.01, η p 2 = .29) and Keyboard (F(1,22) = 4.4, p <.05, η p 2 = .17) as well as a marginally significant trend of Handedness (F(1,22) = 3.4, p = .08, η p 2 = .24) without significant interactions among these factors.

In this regard, sex, re-irradiation, type of resection and age category were non-significant factors, whereas the use of temozolomide (concomitant and adjuvant) were significant and RPA class marginally significant (p = 0.08).

Post hoc testing revealed only a marginally significant decrease in flower visit duration in response to florivory compared to control (Tukey, p = 0.08), in the first experimental round.

Additionally, light cannabis use was a marginally significant predictor of self-reported engagement in MVPA (odds ratio [ OR ] = 1.07, 95% CI [1.00, 1.15], p = 0.08).

There was a marginally significant main effect of higher PHS associated with higher tau ( P = 0.080).

In contrast, the “tomentosus” × “grandiflorum” had marginally significant lower relative fecundity compared with the “tomentosus” control cross (estimate = 0.29 ± 0.069, t = −1.766, p = 0.08).

A marginally significant Visit * Hemisphere interaction [ F (3, 89) = 2.34, p = 0.08] was also observed, with simple-effect analyses revealing a later latency in L-FFG than R-FFG at Visit 2 [ t (19) = –2.27, p = 0.02] (see Figure 4 for least-square means plot for averaged L-FFG and R-FFG latency at each visit).

The analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of the condition contrast, β = .19, p = .080, qualified by a significant interaction with PNS, β = –.28, p = .036.

Predictors of perceived functioning and effectiveness scores There was a significant difference in perceived functioning scores between structure type ( p = 0.05) and a marginally significant difference in scores between districts ( p = 0.08).

In perennial Sundanian grasses, variation across treatments was marginally significant ( F = 2.62, df = 5, p = 0.08), with the greatest change in the E5 treatment plots.

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).

Moreover, there was a significant group main effect with controls showing higher dlPFC activation compared to remitted/R patients (F(1, 42) = 5.33, p = 0.02) and a marginally significant group effect with higher dlPFC activation for the controls vs. acute BD patients (F(1, 60) = 3.07, p = 0.08).

A linear mixed model using the full sample (Time 1: TD N = 61, autism N = 66; Time 2: TD N = 43, autism N = 47; Time 3: TD N = 31, autism N = 30) revealed a time X hemisphere interaction ( F (2, 414.82) = 4.35, p = 0.01) and a marginally significant group X hemisphere interaction ( F (1, 414.80) = 3.05, p = 0.08).

There appear to be a marginally significant relationship between time and condition ( χ 2 (6) = 11.13, p = .08, Cramer's V = 0.22).

Marginally significant correlations were seen between the IL-10 level and the CRP (r s =0.38, p=0.08) and disease stage (r s =0.35, p=0.067).

Prosody made a marginally significant difference in the unexpected conditions (SL–QL: t (38)=−1.80, p =.080), but not in the expected conditions ( p >.05).

55 years, p = 0.02), and a marginally significant higher percentage were undergoing dialysis before their most current admission that led to VAP (22% vs. 10%, p = 0.08).

A 3 (chances of winning) x 2 (choice condition) ANOVA ( n = 28) revealed a significant main effect of chances of winning [ F (2, 54) = 4.32, p < .05, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ \eta_p^2 = .{14} $$\end{document} ] and a marginally significant effect of choice condition [ F (1, 27) = 3.41, p = .08, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ \eta_p^2 = .{11} $$\end{document} ], but no significant Chances of Winning x Choice Condition interaction [ F (2, 54) = 0.63].

Figure 5 a illustrates that PRA and PAL accounted for 59% of the CS variance, and that PRA had a significant independent effect on CS ( β = 0.48, p < 0.01), while PAL had a marginally significant association with CS ( β = 0.31, p = 0.08), which supports Hypothesis 1 .