“marginally significant”

However, there was a marginally significant difference in reaction time between groups, t (28) = 1.803, p = .082, Cohen’s d = 0.664, such that CHL were slower to identify whether the probe was one of the previous encoding set than CNH.

The ANOVA results showed a marginally significant trend in the x -axis coordinates during Session II, with F(2,21) = 2.820, p = 0.082 ( Figure 6 ).

In the hand condition, a two-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects of Age [ F (1, 41) = 17.65, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.277] and Reaching [ F (1, 41) = 8.88, p = 0.005, η 2 = 0.014] and a marginally significant interaction effect [ F (1, 41) = 3.18, p = 0.082, η 2  = 0.005].

SMI was also decreased with increasing education status, however, the changes were marginally significant ( p = 0.082).

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

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).

First, we evaluate ‘confounding effect.’ Among the unmeasured variable, history of hypertension (HTN) and number of endovascular managements were marginally significant (HR, 0.194; 95% CI, 0.031–1.239; P = 0.082 and HR, 0.600; 95% CI, 0.420–0.858; P = 0.057).

TVRR showed a marginally significant correlation with clinical stages: 46.8%±25.1%, 39.1%±25.9%, 30.7%±24.8%, and 30.8%±21.7%, respectively (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.138; p=0.082).

However, only a marginally significant p-value (p=0.082 using the log-rank test) was observed compared with the CCRT group (estimated OS of 68.7 months vs. 59.8 months).

The treatment group receives 0.4 more offers for all job types, representing a 14% marginally significant increase ( P = 0.082 , q = 0.066 , 95% CI [−0.05, 0.87], column 5 in Table 1 ), and 0.2 more offers for tenure-track positions, which is not statistically significant ( P = 0.364 , 95% CI [−0.22, 0.59] column 6 in SI Appendix , Table S12 ).

The paternal helicopter attitude showed a positive but marginally significant effect (B = 0.005, p = 0.082), while self-determination had a significant negative effect (B = −0.048, p < 0.001).

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.

The interaction was marginally significant among the two effects (F = 3.36, p = 0.082), so we decided to perform all pairwise comparisons of category combinations, and found that Odontites had no further significant negative effect on Festuca in flowerbeds where Sporobolus was also present (Fig. 1 C; Table 1 ).

η p 2 = 0.418), the interaction between prime rhythm pattern and ROI was not significant ( F (16, 400) = 0.881, p = 0.592, η p 2 = 0.034), the interaction between target rhythm pattern and ROI was marginally significant ( F (8, 200) = 1.783, p = 0.082, η p 2 = 0.067), and the interaction among the prime rhythm pattern, target rhythm pattern, and ROI was not significant ( F (16, 400) = 1.000, p = 0.455, η p 2 = 0.038).

When probing for the output of Zhou‐NS 2020 model, we found that the three‐way interaction EMOTIONAL AROUSAL*STIMULI*EXPERIENCE was marginally significant ( t (84) = −1.76, p = .082).

The repeated-measure ANOVA on the O 2 Hb and HHb time-course series confirmed a main effect of condition [ F (1,15) = 7.893, p = 0.013], corresponding to significantly greater O 2 Hb increases bilaterally in silence than music condition, and a marginally significant condition × laterality interaction [ F (1,15) = 3.47, p = 0.082].

In the total study population ( n = 245), the log-rank test indicated a lower incidence of delayed bleeding ( P = 0.036), with the Cox regression model showing a marginally significant effect (HR: = 0.17, 95%CI: 0.022-1.26, P = 0.082).

Patients with a lean test abnormality had marginally significant lower values than those with no lean test abnormality in SF-36 –Social Functioning (23.0 vs. 27.5, p = 0.082).

Cases where AI recommended LEAP had higher Beighton scores (mean = 3.0, SD = 1.7) compared to those where AI recommended against LET (mean = 2.0, SD = 1.9), though this difference was marginally significant ( t = 1.79, p = 0.082, Cohen’s d = 0.57).

A marginally significant effect was observed in training condition [ p = 0.082, 95% CI = (−0.23, 0.01); wide – small], demonstrating that the small target group performed more corrective movements aiming to the test targets.

On the other hand, with regard to the number of teeth, the results of the multiple logistic regression analysis ( Table 3 and Table 4 ) show a marginally significant association with 20–27 teeth in women (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.94–2.80, p = 0.082, reference: 0–9 teeth); otherwise, no statistically significant association was observed.

The differences between the combinations and the images were marginally significant ( p = 0.082).

These analyses revealed a statistically significant interaction of Gender of the Perceiver x Verbal Aggression (Standardized Beta = -.43; t = -2.01; p = .045) and marginally significant interactions for Gender of the Perceiver x AQ Total score (Standardized Beta = -.39; t = -1.74; p = .082), and Gender of the Perceiver x Hostility (Standardized Beta = -.30; t = -1.71; p = .087).

Further analysis demonstrated that interaction between language and the Simon effect was significant for the single trial baseline ( β = 0.462, SE = 0.129, t = −3.59, p = 0.001) and marginally significant under the repeat trial baseline ( β = 0.222, SE = 0.126, t = 1.77, p = 0.082).

More importantly, the three-way interaction between Avatar Position, PT Group and Motion Adaptor was also marginally significant, F (1, 10) = 3.726, p = 0.082, η 2 = 0.271.