“marginally significant”

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 Friedman test showed a marginally significant effect of the AG level on HF on female participants (χ 2 (7) = 12.410, p = 0.088).

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.

Previously sibling mortality was marginally significant following multivariable adjustment (IRR = 1.032, p = 0.088).

Main Effects Analyses The two-way MANCOVA shows a marginally significant total direct effect of ad type on taste perceptions ( F (1, 136) = 2.96, p = 0.088), with the single-sense ad slogan ( M = 7.15, SD = 1.60) leading to more positive taste perceptions than the multiple-sense ad slogan ( M = 6.68, SD = 1.61).

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).

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 ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between shoot cluster size and distance to the forest edge ( p = 0.088; Figure S8.1 , Supplement S8).

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

The hypothesized effect of the structural paradox on distrust as compared to the low power-low status condition became marginally significant ( p = 0.088).

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).

The interaction effect was marginally significant, F (1, 35) = 3.08, p = 0.088.

INTENTIONAL BINDING TASK The GLM revealed a significant main effect of AGENCY, F 1,50 = 6.28, p = 0.015, and a marginally significant trend of JUDGMENT, F 1,50 = 3.032, p = 0.088.

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).

For LTI, phosphate levels were significantly correlated ( r = 0.145, p = 0.019), and intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) and high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels were marginally significant ( r = 0.145, p = 0.088 for iPTH and r = 0.142, p = 0.096 for hs-CRP). 3.3.

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

The BRCA1 deficient models (all Brca1 +/- ; p53 +/- IR and Brca1 Co / Co ;TgMMTV-Cre; p53 +/- tumors) were marginally significant with human basal-like tumors ( p = 0.088).

1 -D), but the positive relationship between the difference in antibody level between the first and the last egg and FA was marginally significant ( r 2 = 0.17, β ±SE = 10.39±5.72, F 1,16 = 3.30, P = 0.0881).

We also performed PERMANOVA test to explore the differences of beta diversity between groups, which revealed a marginally significant difference between RAI and nonRAI subgroups (R 2 = 0.0181, P = 0.0882).

However, a marginally significant difference in PRI ( P =0.0883, Figure 1B ) was observed in PMs.

For Negative Control Single Cut animals, Fisher’s Exact Test revealed a marginally significant association between group and the location of labeling, i.e., within or beyond the boundaries established by Unoperated Control animals ( P = 0.0885; Table 1 ).

EHO biases analysis The initial logistic regression model using subset A with EHO as a predictor and exposure source as an outcome was marginally significant (Wald test, p = 0.0885).

Significant ( p < 0.0001) and marginally significant ( p = 0.0887) associations between CEA level and DFS were observed in HER2-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers, respectively (Fig. 3c , d ).

The correlation coefficients were significant for the NAc core-like subdivisions (left: r = − 0.50, p = 0.048; right: r = − 0.54, p = 0.031) and marginally significant for the NAc shell-like subdivisions (left: r = − 0.44, p = 0.089; right: r = − 0.46, p = 0.075).

7E ) and marginally significant for winter freezing at −5 °C ( r 2 = 0.36, P = 0.089; Fig. 7C ).