“marginally significant”

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).

In the “stimulation group” there was only a marginally significant difference between the task performance at the first (7.7% ± 1.6) and the second time point of task execution (8.7% ± 1.6) ( t (16) = −1.86; p = .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).

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]).

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 difference between the two prime structures was marginally significant ( p = 0.0820).

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.

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).

Without considering excluded players in the analysis, the higher SOGS scores for respondents who gambled during the lockdown were marginally significant ( p = 0.082).

The model for frailty was marginally significant, F(9, 119) = 1.77, p = 0.082, with an adjusted R2 of 5.1%.

BMI exhibited a marginally significant negative association ( 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).

The interaction between self‐identity and root fresh weight was marginally significant ( p = 0.082, Table 2 , Supporting Information Table S2 ).

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

Duration of Prior LUTS Our study found a marginally significant correlation (P=0.0822; RR, 1.867; 95% CI, 0.680 to 5.119) between duration of LUTS less than 3 months and successful TWOC.

There was a marginally significant difference in ethnicity distribution between the two groups (P = 0.08271), with a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic or Latino patients in the dexmedetomidine group (2.4%) compared to the non-dexmedetomidine group (0.5%).

Perceived stress A 2 (SES) × 2 (time) mixed ANOVA conducted on perceived stress scores yielded a marginally significant main effect of SES, F (1, 97) = 3.06, p = .083, partial η 2 = .031 (a small effect).

Growth reduction due to WD was marginally significant in Cvi-0 ( P = 0.083), and not significant in Mt-0, Bay-0, Ler-1 and Est-1, which are accessions the most tolerant to WD ( Figure 4B ).

Emotional Well-being Subjective Well-being MDBF Mood The repeated-measure analysis yielded a significant main effect of “time,” F (1,34) = 12.29, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.266 , a marginally significant effect of the factor “group,” F (2,34) = 2.67, p = 0.083, η p 2 = 0.136 and a significant interaction between both factors, F (2,34) = 4.003, p = 0.027, η p 2 = 0.191 .

In the low-depression group, σ values also increased in association with those valence and arousal scores (see the left panels of Figure 4 ), resulting in a significant positive correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient) between the arousal scores and σ values ( r (28) = 0.40, p = 0.028) and a marginally significant correlation between the valence scores and σ values ( r (28) = 0.32, p = 0.083).

Two‐way repeated ANOVA (2 ROIs × 2 task conditions) analysis showed a significant main effect of ROI ( F (1, 25) = 4.446, p = .045, η p 2 = 0.151), a marginally significant main effect of task condition ( F (1, 25) = 3.270, p = .083, η p 2 = 0.116), and a significant ROI (rIFG/vertex) × task condition (painful/neutral) interaction ( F (1, 25) = 26.044, p < .0001, η p 2 = 0.510).

Results Behavioral results Cardiovascular fitness For cardiovascular fitness, we found a significant SESSION by GROUP interaction [ F (4, 41) = 2.79, p = 0.031, η 2 = 0.12], a marginally significant effect for GROUP [ F (2, 41) = 0.19, p = 0.083, η 2 = 0.01], but no significant main effect for SESSION [ F (2, 41) = 1.54, p = 0.220].

For the main effects in Model 1 (only independent variables included), teachers’ need-thwarting interpersonal behaviors significantly negatively predicted students’ PE class engagement ( β = −0.407, SE = 0.062, t = −7.429, p < 0.001***), while the predictive effect of need-supportive interpersonal behaviors on class engagement was marginally significant ( β = 0.095, SE = 0.047, t = 1.741, p = 0.083).

However, in the experiment at the continental scale, the presence/absence of the bacteria was marginally significant for an effect on the relative plant growth ( p = 0.083) and we observed the following trend: when the virus was absent, the presence of the bacteria limited plant growth, while in presence of the virus, the opposite was found (Figure 3B ).

There were also large and significant decreases in patients’ depressive, anxiety, and anger symptoms ( d s −1.39 to −1.93) and a large, marginally significant decrease in patients’ insomnia ( d = −0.85; p = 0.083).