“marginally significant”

The mean number of barriers reported was significantly ( P < 0.05) higher for women compared to men in the 60–69 year age groups and marginally significant in the 70–79 and 80 years and over groups ( P = 0.08).

In all correlation analyses, a p ‐value =< .05 (without multiple comparison corrections) was accepted as statistically significant, though marginally significant results ( p =< .08) were also reported. 2.11.

However, the evidence for the relationship of roe deer visitations and ambient temperature was marginally significant ( r = −0.14, p = .08).

Repeated-measures ANOVA on the ACC of emotional faces suggested that the main effect of the test was marginally significant ( F (2, 58) = 2.56, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.04), and the post-hoc t -test found that the ACC of pre-test was higher than that of mid- and post-test ( p < 0.05), with no significant difference between the mid- and post-test ( p > 0.05).

A marginally significant Target Type × Cycle [ F (5, 50) = 2.63, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.20] and a significant Cue Type × Target Type × Cycle [ F (10, 100) = 3.55, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.26] interactions were also obtained.

A pooled analysis of 2 studies in university residential halls reported a marginally significant protective effect of a combination of hand hygiene plus face masks worn by all residents (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21–1.08; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.08) ( Appendix Figure 6) ( 9 , 10 ).

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].

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).

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).

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).

In addition, we found a marginally significant interactive effect of plant community composition and predator density on soil microbial biomass C (LMM, F = 2.92, P = 0.08).

The one exception was the indirect effect for family interference with work, although even this effect was marginally significant and in the predicted direction, p = 0.08.

Pre-HSCT splenectomy was significantly associated with worse 5-year OS, whereas oral busulfan was linked to poorer 5-year EFS compared with intravenous busulfan ( P value was marginally significant at P =0.08).

In addition, the main effect of Site was marginally significant ( F (6, 28) = 1.95, P = 0.08, partial η 2 = 0.07) and post hoc comparisons demonstrated that the vMMN was larger at the occipital electrode sites (O1, O2, and Oz) than left temporal electrode sites (A1, TP7) and right temporal electrode sites (A2, TP8).

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 results of the 2SLS method of IV analysis were reported in Additional file 5 : Table S17 and the causal association of T2D with hypertension was marginally significant (OR = 1.334, 95% CI = 0.967–1.840; P = 0.080).

Moreover, two-sample t -tests on dwell times showed two marginally significant trends: in state 1 neglect group displayed lower dwell times as compared to non-neglect ( p = 0.08, FDR-corrected); in state 2 it was observed a reverse pattern ( p = 0.09, FDR-corrected) ( Figure 2B ).

These tests (Friedman ANOVAs) revealed significant effects for organization, exact p = .0005, engagement, exact p = .04, and effectiveness, exact p = .003; we found only a marginally significant effect for persuasion, exact p = .08.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between protocol and subscale ( F (6, 186) = 5.42, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.06).

Planned contrasts showed that when the advisee’s behavior was rude, it was judged as more arrogant (M = 5.33) than when it was either neutral (M = 3.64) or polite (M = 3.23), p < .0001; the difference between the neutral and polite forms of behavior was marginally significant, p = .08.

As shown in Table 3 , Section A, the effect of the actionable dashboard on attitudes was marginally significant ( p = 0.08), failing to support H2a.

Participants with low/mid-frequency hearing impairment used insulin more frequently and oral medications less frequently (marginally significant, P = 0.08).

There was also a marginally significant main effect of relative salience, F (1,12) = 3.54, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.23, indicating that participants were faster to respond when the target was more salient than the decoy.

Using these criteria, we found that sampling criteria using the SNS, the CRT, and SAT Math questions produced marginally significant ( p < .08) improvements in subsample-wide forecasting accuracy without significant change in confidence.

A wilcoxon signed rank test on residuals indicates that asterids I are marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for lacking diversity (two sided, μ = 0) but other groups (gymnosperms, p = 0.25; magnoliids, p = 0.20; rosids I, p = 0.97; rosids II, p = 0.63; asterids II, p = 0.63) show no detectable biases in diversity.