“marginally significant”

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.

Verification of previous findings The correlation between perceived–actual discrepancy and left anterior insula was marginally significant ( β = 0.41, p = 0.08), whereas that between perceived–ideal discrepancy and right temporoparietal junction was not significant ( β = 0.01, p = 0.78).

After adjustment, the difference in PDFF remained marginally significant ( p = 0.08), possibly indicating early compositional changes associated with biomechanical factors.

Marginally significant differences were found for anxiety symptoms ( p = .08).

This revealed a significant main effect of evaluation mode (F(1, 320) = 15.81, p < .001), no main effect of organization type ( p = .55), and a marginally significant interaction between the two (F(1, 320) = 3.08, p = .08).

Similar group differences were found (although SSRT now became marginally significant ( p <0.08)), suggesting the present findings were unlikely to result from comorbid depressive symptoms.

A marginally significant negative correlation between macroplastic area and TIN was observed ( β = −0.01 ± 0.006, t = −1.8, P = 0.08); no other significant effects of plastic contamination on the TIN pool were detected.

For errors, there was a marginally significant shift effect ( P < 0.08); fewer errors were committed at rest (0.37 ± 1.01 n /session) than at low-stress (1.26 ± 3.30 n /session).

There was a marginally significant effect of condition ( F (1,16) = 3.44, P = 0.08, η 2 = 0.18), showing that more saccades in the “similar” than the “different” condition predicted the Dm effect.

Results Pre-experiment ratings As expected, participants found the android to be significantly less humanlike ( M android = 4.32, M control = 7.42, t (37) = 8.89, p <0.0001, d = −1.44), and felt less comfortable viewing his videos than those of the control (marginally significant two-tailed t-test: M android = 4.11, M control = 4.68, t (37) = 1.83, p = 0.08, d = 0.29).

Leptin and leptin receptor levels and genotypes We found that 5′-UTR LEP polymorphism (rs13228377) correlates with serum leptin levels, with AA genotype related to increased leptin level independent of asthma status, although the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.08).

The model with age and gender was marginally significant, F (2,132) = 2.57, p = 0.08, and explained 3.8% of the variance in BAT behavior.

In terms of group-based comparisons (Additional file 12 ), algorithms that used epigenomic information had significantly lower AUCs than others (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.02); cancer-specific algorithms showed marginally significant than the other algorithms (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.08).

CVS There was a marginally significant AI-by-time interaction (OR = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.03, P = 0.08).

The interaction effect was marginally significant [ F (1, 24) = 3.39, p = 0.08, partial η2 = 0.12].

For sample 1, the overall model was marginally significant ( F (2, 210) = 2.59; p = 0.08), with a negative but non-significant linear effect ( t = −1.46; ns ), and a significant accelerating quadratic effect, ( t = 2.28; p < 0.05); and for sample 2, the overall model was significant ( F (2, 160) = 5.34; p = 0.006), with a negative but non-significant linear effect ( t = −1.32; ns ), and a significant accelerating quadratic effect, ( t = 3.03; p = 0.003).

stricta , there was a marginally significant, negative relationship between flower density treatment and the total number of visits ( F 2,24 = 2.67, p = 0.08; Figure 1 A, Table S1A ) and a significant, negative relationship with the per-unit resource visitation rate ( F 2,24 = 5.42, p = 0.01; Figure 1 C, Table S1A ), suggesting resource dilution effects.

The reduction was marginally significant (Wilcoxon test, p > 0.08 for both comparisons).

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

PCPs had a non-significant increase in the Attitudes and Engagement subscales, a marginally significant increase in the Confidence subscale ( p = 0.08), and a significant increase in the total GPACS-D score, from 3.41 (SD = 0.49) to 3.59 (SD = 0.39) ( p = 0.03).

While the overall model was significant, χ 2 (2) = 8.91, p = 0.01, only children’s engagement predicted variance in children stating that they learned something, and only at a marginally significant level, B = 0.90, SE = 0.52, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.02, p = 0.08, Odds Ratio = 2.47.

Note that including the two outlying individuals in the analyses only impacted overall accuracy (not response times), and made the difference between the accuracy for the valid nature trials ( M = 0.81, SE = 0.02) and valid urban trials ( M = 0.74, SE = 0.03) marginally significant; t (84) = 1.75, p = .08).

The estimates established with the bootstrap procedure remained of quite similar values and significance as in the standard approach, with the exception for mid incubation, where the value became marginally significant (P = 0.08, S6 Fig in S1 File ).

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

Cortisol awakening response was marginally significant for yoga (p=0.08).