“marginally significant”

The interaction between question type and required reasoning was marginally significant, F (1, 61) = 3.15, p = .081, η 2 = .05.

Without the participant, the correlation between hearing aid use and BEPTA was marginally significant, r (13) = 0.501, p = 0.081.

They did however find a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.081), which might be a chance finding, between walkability and talking with neighbours for the prediction of sedentary time.

This resulted in a marginally significant interaction between memory type, figure condition and experiment (F(1,38) = 3.2, p = .081, η 2 = .078).

Instead, bet height was significantly greater for target versus control color on guess and target trials (both p s < 0.001, η 2 s > 0.23) and marginally significant for swap trials t (32) = 1.80. p = 0.081, η 2 = 0.09 (notably, swap trials had reduced power due to low trial counts).

Additionally, we found a marginally significant ( P = 0.081) difference of TgAb (IU/ml) between the two groups (with CLNM: median 2.02, interquartile range 1.02-24.20; without CLNM: median 1.71, interquartile range 0.98-7.15).

Participants who were overweight showed a tendency toward irregular monitoring compared with those with normal weight, although this was marginally significant (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 0.92–4.60, p = 0.081).

Gender differences were marginally significant in TAFS-M and TAFS-L in the same direction (t=-1.76, df=91, p=0.081, Cohen’s d=0.41; t=-1.75, df=91, p=0.084, Cohen’s d=0.41).

In this three-locus model, the trabecular area was smaller in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group, which was statistically significant in the AIS group ( p = 0.012) and marginally significant in the controls ( p = 0.081, Figure 2 B).

Furthermore, in the treated sub-population, there was a marginally significant trend toward greater change in RR max in AD with Tx, compared with CN ( p = 0.081).

Consistent with the overall data, fixation instability was larger in the ‘poor’ than in the ‘good’ fixation condition as indicated by a marginally significant main effect of Fixation, F (1,11) = 3.7, p = .081 (within-subject ANOVA including the factors Fixation and Time).

The contribution of breed to predicting the beta-lactam level was marginally significant (p < 0.081).

The first data set has a positive correlation at a marginally significant level ( n = 262, slope = 8.683, P = 0.081; Fig. 1F and Table 2 ) between the empirical minimal doubling times and the spacer numbers.

Only CAMS-R was found to be significantly correlated with valence rating of negative pictures ( r (20) = .634, p = .007) and also marginally significant in correlating with valence ratings of positive pictures ( r (20) = −.459, p = .081).

Results revealed a marginally significant main effect of valence in mPFC F (2, 24) = 2.80, p = 0.081.

There was a marginally significant effect of age on RT difference scores (LRT: χ 2 = 3.05, df = 1, P = 0.081; Table 4 ), revealing a trend for response-slowing being greater amongst younger animals.

Only the relationship of entitlement and peer-rated prestige became marginally significant when controlling for the gender composition of the dyad, β ^ = −.058, SE = .033, p = .081, 95% CI [−.122, .007].

erent groups of older adults influenced older adults' life satisfaction and loneliness, we conducted the independent sample t ‐tests showing that the life satisfaction in HH was significantly greater than in LL ( MD = 3.21, t (1,99) = 4.03, p < .001), and the loneliness in HH was lower than LL at a marginally significant level ( MD = −2.28, t (1,99) = −1.75, p = .081).

For the final turning peak velocity ( Figure 3 F), the elderly group showed marginally significant differences with respect to the senior adults ( p = 0.081), but their peak velocity was significantly lower than in young adults ( p = 0.015) and in children ( p = 0.015).

Post-hoc comparison of individual group means showedasignificant ( p = 0.009) difference in dopamine between Aldh1a1 −/− ×Aldh2 −/− mice and wild-type controls at middle age, and a marginally significant decrease ( p = 0.081) in the oldest group.

A marginally significant three-fold interaction of age with block type and outcome valence ( F (1,52) = 3.18; p = .081; η p 2 = .06) was revealed.

A marginally significant distractor interference ( p = 0.081) was also found in the high-load condition (HLND).

Survival analysis ( figure 3F ) showed an improvement in survival for mice in the CXCL10-Nrf2-FTH-MSC group (median survival time: 21 days) compared to the PBS group (median survival time: 15 days), with a marginally significant difference (p=0.081).

Therefore, a Kruskal–Wallis test was used instead, yielding a marginally significant result (H = 5.026, p = 0.081).

There was a marginally significant four-way interaction including the Pre-Post contrast (Site ∗ Stimulation ∗ Pre-Post ∗ List: β = -0.06 ± 0.04, t = -1.75, p = 0.081) but not the Pre-During contrast, (Site ∗ Stimulation ∗ Pre-During ∗ List: β = -0.05 ±0.04, t = -1.36, p = 0.17).