“marginally significant”

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).

Pairwise comparisons within male RS of different mating treatments (Table S 3 a) revealed significant difference between Repeated-♂-RS and Virgin-♂-RS ( P = 0.044), and marginally significant difference between Multiple-♂-RS and Virgin-♂-RS ( P = 0.083).

Similarly for the best-fitting slope, although the main effect of sensory detail was marginally significant ( F (2,26) = 2.74, MS = 6051, η p 2 = .174, p = .083), there was a significant quadratic trend ( F (1,13) = 5.70, MS = 11940, η p 2 = .305, p < .05) suggesting that the slope was most negative for speech with an intermediate amount of sensory detail.

There was no significant main effect of parent sex on dyadic coping, but there was a marginally significant main effect of parent age on dyadic coping ( p = 0.083), such that older age predicted poorer dyadic coping.

There was a marginally significant main effect of age, F (1, 75) = 3.09, p = .083, with 4-year-olds ( M = .43, SD = .42) performing better than 3-year-olds ( M = .27, SD = .36).

Weighted connectance and weighted nestedness were positively related to the proportion of links removed from the original networks, yet these correlations were marginally significant (ρ = .61 and p = .083 for both metrics; Appendix S1 ). 4.

The correlation between sACCl and mFPl showed a marginally significant increase after sadness provocation only in the high-sadness group (Fig. 6A , right, paired sample t -test p = 0.083 for high-sadness and p = 0.26 for low-sadness ).

There was also a marginally significant correlation between the DCDQ and the BPA divided attention test (r=0.646, p=0.083), which engages working memory abilities.

Language Group : The MLM revealed a marginally significant difference between monolinguals and bilinguals ( F (1,46) = 3.145, p = .083).

Results from the ANOVA did not show significant differences between groups after the intervention; however, the experimental group showed a marginally significant increase in eye contact (F = 3.17; p = .083; effect size = 0.079) and the control group demonstrated a decrease in functional communication ( M Pre = 16.08, M Post = 11.31).

However, a marginally significant association was found between the rs6505162AA/AC genotype and increased PTB risk for those aged ⩾60 years (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 0.93–3.06), P = 0.083.

deltoides is also marginally significant ( p = 0.083, Table 3 ), but with selection only about half as strong as in P. tremula (4 N e s = 0.330).

porphyraceus , Gallicolumba stairi ) were marginally significant among seasons (P = 0.083) and highly significantly among habitat types on Lakeba (P≪0.001), with more individuals recorded in the dry season, and more found in Mid-successional Forest than in any of the more disturbed habitats including Secondary Forest ( Figure 7 ; Table 5 ).

However, on R + 1, an increase in evening cortisol was found [ F ( 4, 36) = 1.46, p = 0.234; post hoc compared to DI10: p = 0,038; also post hoc shows marginally significant difference relative to B-1: p = 0.083].

Supporting these findings, model testing with LTT generated a statistically significant better fit of the birth–death model (speciation + extinction) over the speciation-only Yule model (likelihood ratio test chi 2 p value 0.030), and the Pybus-Harvey gamma statistic was positive (1.7347), indicating that the speciation rate was initially low and subsequently increased (though this statistic was marginally significant at p = 0.083).

This finding was marginally significant in both crude (IRR: 1.004; p = 0.083) and adjusted analysis (aIRR: 1.004; p = 0.103).

Ordinal logistic model based on COVID-19-specific mortality The overall model regressing on having one or more pulmonary conditions was marginally significant (p-value = 0.083) with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.8205 and 95% confidence interval (CI) of (0.9140, 3.5607).

According to Figure 3 , a set of independent sample t -tests showed that the SIN perception threshold μ of the NH group was significantly lower than that of the TN group only under speech masking’s colocation condition ( t = 2.460, p = 0.024) and marginally significant under noise masking’s colocation condition ( t = 1.836, p = 0.083) but not under noise masking’s separation condition ( t = 0.926, p = 0.367) or speech masking’s separation condition ( t = 0.689, p = 0.500).

3a–c , there was a significant increasing trend in sCD14 levels with sexual exposure groups ( p = 0.014), and marginally significant increasing trends in C-reactive protein (CRP) ( p = 0.083) and sCD163 ( p = 0.068) with sexual activity groups.

The same effects were found for calling rate of followers [penalty: F (1,31) = 17.416, P < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.360, high < low; opponent: F (1,31) = 8.801, P = 0.006, η p 2 = 0.221, human-to-human > human-to-computer; penalty × opponent (marginally significant): F (1,31) = 3.211, P = 0.083, η p 2 = 0.094; Figure 3 D].

Development time and growth There was a marginally significant three-way interaction between temperature, day and developmental stage ( F 2,3 = 2.49, P = 0.083; Fig. 3 , Supplementary Table S3 ), with a trend suggesting that temperature influenced the rate of progression through naupliar stages over time.

A marginally significant linear association was observed between dietary vitamin E intake and SOS%/year ( p = 0.083).

After taking the test, by True Overplacement, all but the Japanese significantly decrease their estimates (-6.78%, p = .022; -8.07%, p = .002; -4.28%, p = .032; and 1.98%, p = .435, respectively), but all remain overplaced, significantly so for the Hong Kong Chinese (5.80%, p = .050) and Japanese (6.93%, p = .045) and marginally significant for the European Canadians (6.88%, p = .083).

We also applied the ‘trim and fill’ method [ 55 ] to examine the sensitivity of the results to publication bias and found that the overall association became substantially weaker and remained marginally significant (−0.108 ± 0.062 s.e.; p = 0.083).

A marginally significant difference was observed in OS (p = 0.083) but not in PFS (p = 0.38) between the two groups. 3.