“marginally significant”

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.

Participants receiving AT showed marginally significant reductions in depressive symptom at week 1 (difference −0.49, 95% CI −1.02, 0.05, P = 0.08), week 2 (difference −0.54, 95% CI −1.09, 0.008, P = 0.05), week 3 (difference −0.50, 95% CI −1.10, 0.09, P = 0.10), and week 4 (difference −0.53, 95% CI −1.15, 0.08, P = 0.09) (Table S5 ).

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

There was a marginally significant ( p = 0.08) effect between subgroup and nirsevimab concentration, when evaluated using an ANOVA, with a significant difference observed at 13.6 μg /mL nirsevimab ( p = 0.007) (Supplementary Fig. 5 ).

(We thank Todd Hare for generously sharing a mask of this ROI with us.) In Dataset 1 (unregulated altruistic choice), we replicated the result from the main manuscript that the dlPFC is more activated on generous compared to selfish choices (t 43 =2.09, p=0.04, Appendix 2—figure 1g ), and similarly observed a marginally significant correlation with difference in weights on self vs. other (r=–0.27, p=0.08).

Grade effect: For the overt victimization, univariate ANOVA indicated that the main effect of grade was marginally significant (F (1,1040) = 2.27, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.007).

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

However, ‘sleep hours’ did not correlate with workplace accidents for the sample as a whole or when differentiating by sex. Regarding sleep quality variables, marginally significant correlations were found in the case of males between ‘sleep quality (last month)’ with workplace accidents, r (15) = .46; p = .08; and ‘sleepiness’ with commuting accidents, r (15) = .45; p = .09.

For RT scores, there was a significant main effect of rumination on NA ( β = .25, SE = .04, p <.01), and the interaction between rumination and the RT scores of the emotional n -back was marginally significant ( β = −.07, SE = .04, p = .08).

Voice quality before swallowing did not show any significant results, except for a marginally significant result ( p = 0.08) in the first swallow attempt.

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.

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).

Although this tendency did not reach statistical significance, it was marginally significant at the central region [ F (1,33) = 3.18; MSE = 0.003; p = 0.08].

The interaction between these two factors was marginally significant, F (1,26) = 3.26, p = 0.08; Simple main effect analysis showed that, while the percentage of double-‘yes’ responses decreased significantly from non-contradictory trials to contradictory trials for both judgment target ( p s < 0.01), the reduction was greater for the self-judgment, indicating that participants were more reluctant to attribute conflicting adjectives to self than other target.

The interaction was marginally significant, b = −0.24, t (221) = −1.75, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.01, and simple slope analyses revealed that, although there was no significant link for high SES students, b = 0.10, t < 1, for low SES students, the more they endorsed BSM, the more they believed in a meritocratic and just society, b = 0.34, t (221) = 4.21, p < 0.001.

This effect is marginally significant ( z = − 1.75 , p = 0.08 ), indicating weak evidence against the null hypothesis.

We found significant overall adaptation effects for pitch changes (relative to the adapters) of 0 semitones (two-tailed paired t-test, t (11) = 5.21, p < 0.001), 2 semitones ( t (11) = 2.37, p < 0.05), and 4 semitones ( t (11) = 4.49, p < 0.001) and a marginally significant effect for a pitch change of 9 semitones ( t (11) = 1.91, p = 0.08).

For allium vegetables, we found a statistically significant antagonistic interaction for rs848 (G–T) and allium vegetable intake (OR interactiv e [OR i ]), 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.99; P = 0.03), and marginally significant interactive effects between rs847 ( P = 0.08) or rs1295685 ( P = 0.06) and allium vegetable intake.

There was a marginally significant correlation between serum prealbumin and LOS, both preoperatively (β = −0.66; 95% CI: −1.42 to −0.10; p = 0.08) and on the second postoperative day (β = −1.37; 95% CI: −2.87 to 0.11; p = 0.06).

There was a significant effect of age and a significant interaction between timepoint and condition ( F s > 4.96, P s < 0.03), but these were qualified by a marginally significant three-way interaction between timepoint, age, and condition F (2,333) = 2.53, P = 0.08.

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

In another replication dataset (the Hisayama Study), there was marginally significant association ( β = 2.18, SE = 1.2, P = 0.08).

A marginally significant interaction effect was observed in ROI4 ( F (1,117) = 3.126, p = 0.080, ηp 2 = 0.026).

N100 There was a marginally significant main effect of group (F 1, 74 = 3.22, p < 0.08, ƞ p 2 = 0.04), a significant main effect of figure type (F 1, 74 = 34.74, p < 0.001, ƞ p 2 = 0.32), and a significant main effect of hemisphere (F 1, 74 = 4.72, p < 0.05, ƞ p 2 = 0.06).