“marginally significant”

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).

There was a marginally significant interaction among process, time, and context ( F (6,144) = 1.87, P = 0.08, η 2 = 0.07).

The former time period, 1979-81, was chosen as a result of earlier work using Trent Cancer Registry data that had shown marginally significant differences (P=0.08) in crude survival between districts for women diagnosed in this period.

Interaction effect The interaction effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for lower frequencies; however, since establishing a possible interaction between context and word class was one of the central issues behind this work, we also tested the simple effects.

Marginally significant heterogeneity across studies was observed in both categorical analysis ( I 2 : 60.7%, p = 0.08) and dose-response relationship analysis ( I 2 : 66.3%, p = 0.052).

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.

The results of the heterogeneity test were marginally significant ( Q =12.82; P =.08, I 2 =45.4%, τ 2 =0.01, τ=0.06).

This model was marginally significant [ R 2 = 0.083, Adjusted R 2 = 0.057, F (1, 36) = 3.246, p = 0.080], with modularity marginally related to EF gain ( B = 1.218, p = 0.080, BCa 95% CI [−0.439, 2.276]).

The Morphology × Grade interaction was marginally significant ( F (1,1944) = 2.98, p = 0.08), indicating a significant effect of morphology in both groups, which was larger for 3rd graders whose error rates decreased from 17.4% to 8.9% passing from the R − S − to the R + S + conditions (difference = 8.5%, p < 0.0001); 5th graders’ errors decreased from 9.4% to 1.7% for R − S − and R + S + , respectively (difference = 7.7%, p < 0.0001).

More importantly, the interaction between the PSA condition and target group was marginally significant ( F = 1.88, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.99; p = .08), suggesting that the effect of PSA condition on the dependent variables differed between the target and non-target groups.

We did find a marginally significant main effect of group in the left medial PFC ( P = 0.08) wherein the high‐cost group showed less deactivation than the low‐cost group across all three task conditions.

Only the main effect of the side was marginally significant ( F (1,11) = 3.72 , p = .08).

There was a marginally significant increase in Mest in the maternal hypothalamus during gestation associated with paternal FR ( t 12 = −1.68, p = 0.08; figure 1 c ).

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).

Race/ethnicity was a marginally significant predictor of inflammation (β = −1.430, SE = 0.795, p = 0.08), indicating potentially higher proinflammation in non-Hispanic Whites.

This attenuation was marginally significant ( P = 0.08).

Model 3 (SR → GS rate → SCR) showed a marginally significant mediation effect ( p = .08) ( Table 1 ).

Analysing each of the soundscape scales individually through a factorial ANCOVA test found a marginally significant result for the calmness scale ( df = 1, F = 9.91, p = 0.08).

The same pattern of movement biases observed in single-target trials was also apparent for non-intermediate (direct) movements in dual-target trials ( μ d in the mixture model; two-way ANOVA, main effect of speed, F (1,15)=70.81, P <0.001 and a marginally significant interaction between speed and eccentricity, F(3,15)=2.30, P =0.08).

To ascertain that these lesion effects were task-specific (task: spatial-variant/temporal-variant), we ran three separate mixed-design, repeated-measures ANOVAs considering only the CON and sdlPFC groups with group as a between-subjects variable and task as a within-subjects variable and confirmed a marginally significant task × group interaction on SDT meta-d′/d′ ( F (1,7) = 4.194, p = 0.080) and on hierarchical-model meta-d′/d′ ( F (1,7) = 4.599, p = 0.069), as well as a slightly weaker effect on φ ( F (1,7) = 1.939, p = 0.206).

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).

PCoA plots by Bray–Curtis distance revealed a marginally significant difference in microorganism composition between the benefit and resistance groups (adonis P = 0.08) but no significant difference between the benefit group and the severe irAE group (adonis P = 0.91).

In linear mixed-effect analysis, it was marginally significant (z = 1.75, p = .08).

There were no significant associations between depression and any of the built and social environment measures of the neighborhood, except for the total length of space with public lighting, which was marginally significant (p = 0.08).

7 B ) demonstrated a marginally significant effect of Voice ( B̂ = 0.89 ± 0.51, z = 1.75, p = 0.08), no effect of Time ( B̂ = −0.19 ± 0.27, z = 0.73, p = 0.98), and no interaction Time × Voice ( B̂ = −0.09 ± 0.33, z = −0.27, p = 0.55).