“marginally significant”

The analysis revealed a significant interaction between emotional condition and awareness level ( F 1, 40 = 27.347, p <0.001, η p 2 = 0.406), a significant interaction between emotional condition, T2 lag and awareness level ( F 7, 280 = 3.369, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.078), a significant main effect of T2 lag ( F 7, 280 = 25.551, p <0.001, η p 2 = 0.390) and a marginally significant main effect of awareness level ( F 1, 40 = 3.064, p = 0.088, η p 2 = 0.071).

It was found that the IFOV conditions (F = 17.33, p < 0.001) significantly influenced the BTC, while gender had a marginally significant effect on the BTC (F = 3.044, p = 0.088).

Applied to all 31 subjects the correlation was marginally significant ( r = −0.31, p = 0.088).

However, entering the SVO after the PVQ-RR led to a marginally significant increase in explained variance of almost 1% (adjusted R 2 = 0.24, p = 0.088).

A marginally significant treatment by aHEI interaction was observed (F(6,186) = 1.87, p = 0.088, Table 3 ).

2 In the univariate logistic regression models, IgM positivity (69% of samples) and C3 positivity (17% of samples) were not associated with treatment failure, which is defined as nonachievement of at least partial remission at the last follow-up, (odds ratio [OR]: 2.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–7.87, P = 0.164 and OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 0.39–5.99, P = 0.545, respectively), percentage of SSG was marginally significant (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99–1.07, P = 0.088), whereas percentages of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy and percentage of C4d+ nonglobally sclerosed glomeruli were independent predictors of treatment failure, and remain significant after the adjustment to the 24-hour proteinuria and percentage of SSG in the multivariate model (OR per 1% = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.003–1.11, P = 0.038 and OR per 1% = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.007–1.054, P = 0.008, respectively).

A follow-up regression model predicting unique actions from education and proportion of key function play yielded a marginally significant interaction term ( p = .088), so we remain cautious in our interpretation.

Second, and most paradoxically, the exploratory analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction effect between manipulated profile source and past experience on reported attraction, F (1, 201) = 2.94, p = .088, η p 2 = .014 ( Figure 3 ).

This finding was statistically significant prior to adjusting for endogenous estrogens (52%, p = 0.031) and marginally significant after adjustment (39%, p = 0.088).

Additionally, there were significant relationships between frequency of TM home practice and improvements in emotional exhaustion ( p = 0.005), anxiety ( p = 0.008), and insomnia ( p < 0.001), and a marginally significant relationship with depression ( p = 0.088).

Not undergoing post-OLT CRRT was also a marginally significant predictor of removal from dialysis (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.95 to 2.14, p = 0.088; Table 3 ).

We found that the main effect was marginally significant [ F (3, 24) = 2.45, p = 0.088].

The two groups had a marginally significant difference in age with the mindfulness group slightly older [ t (36) = −1.755, p = 0.088], and a marginally significant difference in the interval between their two visits [ t (36) = −1.764, p = 0.089] with the mindfulness group slightly longer due to the longer time interval of the four subjects from the waiting list.

absoluta release density had no effect on the egg number (χ2 = 0.24., df = 1, p = .621) and had a marginally significant effect on the larva number (χ2 = 2.92, df = 1, p = .088).

In the subgroup of younger patients, our miRNA signature was a marginally significant prognostic factor ( P =0.088).

The comparison between the pureed diet and the soft diet without food textures that pose a risk showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.088).

However, as predicted, there was a significant indirect effect of GA through SPA scores, b = 0.20, SE = 0.08, p = .017, and simultaneously a marginally significant indirect effect of condition through SPA scores, b = 0.10, SE = 0.06, p = .088.

Concerning DFS, the baseline ALC showed marginally significant prognostic value (HR = 0.552, P = .088).

Notably, staff with 2–5 years of service had a significant negative relationship with availability (B = −2.8, p = 0.013) and inventory turnover (B = −2.367, p = 0.04), but a marginally significant positive relationship with inventory turnover effectiveness (B = 5.217, p = 0.088).

We also observed a marginally significant speech stimulus by face context interaction F(1, 33) = 3.089, p = 0.088, η 2 = 0.086.

We apply bivariate probit regression to address this unobserved effect and find that the effect of MAOA remains significant for lottery purchase (allele model, p = 0.010, genotype model, p = 0.011) and marginally significant for insurance purchase (allele model, p = 0.088, genotype model, p = 0.088).

The direct effect of HTD explanation on purchase intention is marginally significant ( p = .088; B = .221).

There were also marginally significant positive associations between Hb and age ( p = 0.088) and female sex ( p = 0.081).

The interaction effect between disclosing robot and involving user was marginally significant ( F (1,23) = 3.179, p = 0.088, η G 2 = 0.023).

A significant main effect of age was observed ( F (5, 1466) = 10.262, p < 0.001), whereas the main effect of sex was marginally significant ( F (5, 1466) = 2.917, p = 0.088).