“marginally significant”

Furthermore, we found a marginally significant association between history of hypothyroidism ( P =0.081) as well as between longer CPB time ( P =0.061) and the development of vasoplegia (Table 4 ).

In Experiment 1 , for the clearly visible condition, two-tailed dependent t -tests revealed a marginally significant semantic facilitation in the μ parameter, t (17) = -1.86, p = .081.

When participants won money (self gain > self no gain), average activity in L VS ( t (45) = 3.265, p = 0.002) was significantly above zero and marginally significant for VMPFC ( t (45) = 1.786, p = 0.081).

A significant interaction was found between stimulus timing and saccade direction ( F (12, 168) = 3.43, p < .01, f = 0.46), along with a marginally significant main effect of saccade direction ( F (1, 14) = 3.46, p = .081, f = 0.46).

The analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction effect between the game type and the level of reasoning (F [1,30] = 3.270, p = .081, η p 2 = 0.098).

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

The multilocus HKA test performed considering silent variation in the sixteen PcG genes was marginally significant using D . guanche as outgroup (χ 2 = 22.09, df = 15, P = 0.0812).

Now, what happens to the shape of the baseline cloglog[ h ( t )] function when we change to manmade (asymmetrical, simple SP-fragmented) object outlines? Parameters 7–9 show a marginally significant main effect of Manmade after presentation 1 (parameter 7, PE = −0.3262, p = .0813), and Manmade interacts with TIME in a significant quadratic fashion, changing from (significantly) negative to (non-significantly) positive over time.

As shown in Figure 3 A, older participants had higher ΔfMRI expression scores and greater ΔRT (coefficient of a ) but this effect was marginally significant ( P = 0.0814), and higher ΔfMRI expression scores were associated with greater ΔRT (coefficient of b , P = 0.0004).

The best AICc mortality model included a marginally significant sex-by-treatment interaction ( p = 0.0818; electronic supplementary material, table S2A), prompting a separate analysis of the sexes.

Still, there was a marginally significant interaction between Group and Year, with pre-adopters tending to rate 2014 more highly than 2015, opposite the pattern of adopters ( F (1,643) = 3.04, p = 0.0818).

Levene’s test indicated a marginally significant difference in dispersion (W = 3.14, p = 0.082).

Classification based on the underlying airway disease showed an increased AI risk in patients with asthma (HR: 3.10, 95% CI: 1.84–5.23) and a marginally significant risk in patients with COPD (HR: 3.23, 95% CI: 0.86–12.16, P = 0.082).

For regret (step 1: R 2 = 0.15, p = 0.076, step 2: Δ R 2 = 0.08, p = 0.082) there was a marginally significant two-way interaction between behavior and anticipated emotion in the reverse direction, β = −0.51, SE = 0.28, p = 0.082.

000) and marginally significant in Spain ( M men = 2 . 84 , SD = 2 . 43; M women = 2 . 50 , SD = 1 . 99; t = 1 . 75 , p = . 082).

There was a marginally significant increase in sample size over time ( B = 3.35, ß = 0.15, p = .082, Table 2 , Fig 3 ).

The main effect of sequence length was marginally significant ( F (1, 96.6) = 3.08, p = .082).

Tobacco smoking was significantly associated with reduced recurrence-free survival (50.2% versus 100% for never smokers; log-rank p = 0.045), while HPV-status association with increased recurrence-free survival was marginally significant (75.5% for HPV-positive versus 48.8% for HPV-negative; log-rank p = 0.082) (Supplementary Fig. 1A,B ).

However, note that there was a marginally significant interaction of round by age ( F 3,32 = 2.44, p = 0.082, η 2 = 0.078) suggesting a stronger trend for younger children.

BMI exhibited a marginally significant positive correlation with steatotic liver (r=0.118, 95% CI: −0.008 to 0.242, P=0.082).

To further examine variance differences, a two-way Brown–Forsythe ANOVA on absolute deviations from group medians showed a significant main effect of difficulty on response variance (F(1,76) = 61.06, p < 0.001), no significant main effect of period (F(2,76) = 1.12, p = 0.331), and a marginally significant difficulty × period interaction (F(2,76) = 2.58, p = 0.082).

The results indicated that the interaction effect between the COVID-19 threat salience and the relative importance of sensation seeking was marginally significant ( β = −0.17, se =0.10, t = −1.75, p = .082, 90% CI: [−0.337, −0.010]).

Finally, the Group × Testing point x Problem size interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 22) = 3.33, n2p = 0.20, p < 0.082), showing that the problem size effect in Kindergarten was higher in keepers (+43% for small problems, F = 21.29, p < 0.001) than in stoppers (+23%, F = 7.05, p = 0.014), whereas in Grade 2, the problem size effect was still present in stoppers (+9% for small problems, F = 7.49, p = 0.012), but not in keepers (+2%, F < 1). 3.3.

To be conservative, we also ran the correlation with the outlier, which produced marginally significant correlation, r = –0.45, p = 0.082.

Only for the conversational material (CONV) a marginally significant correlation ( r = -0.23, p = 0.082, Pearson’s r ) was found.