“marginally significant”

The effect of Condition was significant for children who heard the confident individual provide the second set of answers, t (42) = 2.48, p = .012, d = .74, and was marginally significant for the first set, t (50) = 1.76, p = .085, d = .49.

Partial Mantel tests controlling for the effect of time between sampling dates gave similar impacts of same vs different lake ( r = 0.372, P = 0.001) and same vs different host species ( r = 0.248, P = 0.001) on Prevosti distances. Our first AMOVA indicated marginally significant differences between P. ramosa genotypes in different lakes (variation explained = 11.9%, P = 0.085; Table 4 ), significant differences between genotypes infecting different host species within lakes (variation explained = 24.0%, P = 0.025; Table 4 ), and significant differences in P. ramosa genetic structure over time during outbreaks (variation explained = 15.2%, P = 0.002; Table 4 ).

However, there was a marginally significant interaction between HW and time ( p ‐value = 0.085), indicating a time‐dependent effect of HWs on phytoplankton biomass (Table A4 ).

In the geography-1 criterion, variation among groups was insignificant, whereas a marginally significant difference among groups (p = 0.085) was found using the geography-2 criterion.

Unexpectedly, however, children who practiced fraction number line estimation without feedback also improved, though the improvement was smaller and marginally significant (pretest PAE = 21%, SD = 19, posttest PAE = 18%, SD = 18), t (24) = -1.80, p = .085, d = -0.36.

The main effect of feedback time on the germane cognitive load was marginally significant [ F (1, 151) = 2.996, p = 0.085, η 2 p = 0.029], which indicates that the germane cognitive load of the immediate feedback group was higher than that of the delayed feedback group (see Figure 3 ).

FA also showed a marginally significant positive effect (B = 0.477, SE = 0.277, p = 0.085) (odds ratio = 1.611, 95 % confidence interval = [0.936, 2.773]).

In contrast to the first three sampling times, wherein the main effect of movement speed was either significant (PeakVel: F (2,38) = 70.58, p < 0.0005; EOT: F (2,38) = 21.14, p < 0.0005) or marginally significant (EOT + 1 s: F (2,38) = 2.76, p = 0.085), the main effect of movement speed was absent at EOT + 2 s (F (2,38) = 0.91, p = 0.417) and at all subsequent time points.

The effect of Openness was found to be marginally significant ( β = 0.15, CI 95 − 0.02 to 0.33, p = 0.085, equivalent to an increase of $19 in willingness to pay; see Table S23 for zero-order correlations and Tables S24 – 25 for full regression outputs).

As well as marginally significant improvements in physical functioning ( p = 0.085), the score was increased in bodily pain ( p = 0.290), social functioning ( p = 0.148) and role-emotional ( p = 0.144) subscales.

The mean value of Lymphocyte ratio % in the welder group (30.29 ± 6.19%) was lower than the non-welder group (32.32 ± 6.64%), but marginally significant (p = 0.085).

However, a significant effect of Time-to-Failure reflects that the error rate increased over time, F (9, 522) = 2.43, p = 0.01, and a marginally significant Condition effect suggests that implementation intention participants tended to make more errors than goal intention participants, F (1, 58) = 3.08, p = 0.085 (Fig. 2B ).

For the large stimulus size 3, the advantage for right over left responses was marginally significant, W (47) = 756, p = .085, r rb = .286.

Values measured before and three months following the SLO training significantly improved compared to those measured before the training process (Bonferroni pairwise comparison p = 0.012), while the difference was marginally significant between acuities measured before and immediately after SLO training (Bonferroni pairwise comparison p = 0.085).

This association was marginally significant (P=0.085) and independent of all clinical covariates in multivariate models ( Table IV ), demonstrating the potential for SLC37A1 as a useful prognostic biomarker for CRC.

Additionally, there were two marginally significant interactions: one occurred between activation in the response inhibition system and the number of communities ( β = 0.299, p = 0.085; Figure 4 A), whereas the other occurred between activation in the response inhibition system and the network size ( β = 0.211, p = 0.084).

Post hoc analyses revealed no significant simple effects, but a marginally significant RT difference in the high load condition ( P = 0.085).

Physical function was a mediator (39.3–40.5% indirect effect) in the IMF%-CFI trajectory relationship but IMF%’s direct effect (59.5-60.7%) on accelerated frailty remained marginally significant (p=0.085–0.096).

Three dimensional LVEF was higher in patients with rejection, however it showed only a marginally significant association [OR 1.035 (0.995; 1.077), p = 0.085].

The results indicated that in Chinese babble, the assimilators performed better than the convergers ( p = 0.047), and the divergers were better to a certain extent than the convergers (marginally significant, p = 0.085).

Using this difference score as our dependent measure and group as fixed factor, we found a marginally significant main effect of group, F (2, 138) = 2.51, P = 0.085, ηp2 = 0.035 (this is analogous to an interaction effect using repeated measures ANOVA with a group factor and an age factor: the statistics are identical).

The community composition of soil invertebrates showed no statistically significant changes along the elevation gradient (analysis of deviance of multivariate generalised linear model fits, df = 8, dev = 434.60, p = 0.13), marginally significant differences across habitats study years ( df = 65, dev = 806.03929.87, p = 0.085), and statistically significant differences between the two study years ( df = 5, dev = 1066.09, p = 0.04).

5 Supplemental individual-level analysis using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model ( Kenny et al., 2006 ) showed convergent results; the Actor × Partner interaction was marginally significant, b = -171.33, SE = 8.49, t (102) = -1.74, p = 0.085 95% CI[-366.68, 24.21].

This analysis revealed greater peak responses in the LBD group, in comparison with the HBD group, during the instruction “look ahead at the whole body” (p = .020) and marginally significant group differences for “open the mirror” (p = .085), “face and head” (p = .090), “neck and arms” (p = .075) and “back side” (p = .089).

The three-way ANOVA revealed significant interactions for group × session [ F (1,38) = 7.40, p = 0.0098, η p 2 = 0.16] and group × channel [ F (1,38) = 4.82, p = 0.034, η p 2 = 0.11] and a marginally significant interaction for group × session × channel [ F (1,38) = 3.13, p = 0.085, η p 2 = 0.076].