“marginally significant”

However, perceived physical risk had a marginally significant negative direct influence on carsharing usage intention ( b 2 = −0.09, p = 0.09) thereby lending support to H5.

At lag 1, cattle incidence showed a significant negative association with human incidence (estimate = −55.345, p = 0.012), and total animal incidence was also marginally significant (estimate = −17.817, p = 0.090).

In multivariable analysis, higher NGON prevalence remained to be associated with larger beta/gamma size (OR = 4.18, 95% CI = 1.62–10.8, P = 0.003) and marginally significant with longer axial length (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 0.90–4.81, P = 0.09).

For high-imageability words, the quadratic contrast was marginally significant, F (1, 51) = 2.99, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.06.

In the nCT subgroup, OS was similar between the cN+/ypN0 group and natural N0 group ( p = 0.771, Figure S2E ); however, the difference between the two groups was marginally significant in nCRT subgroup ( p = 0.090, Figure S2 ). 3.3 Meta‐Analysis After a thorough screening of databases and relevant citations, the meta‐analysis was conducted based on 20 studies that met the inclusion criteria [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] (flow diagram shown as Figure S3 ).

A repeated-measures ANOVA of the percentages of correct responses, with main terms for display type (global-congruent, global-incongruent) and block (1–5), revealed only a marginally significant main effect of block, F (4,60) = 2.04, p = 0.09, but no main effect of display type ( p = 0.21) and no display type × block interaction ( p = 0.86).

Moreover, a marginally significant three-way interaction was found between type frequency, token frequency, and constituency ( F (1, 29) = 3.05, p = 0.09, ƞ 2 = 0.10), indicating that constituency status (i.e., phrasal vs. non-phrasal) might modulate frequency effects.

However, a marginally significant positive correlation between arbuscular colonization rates and total biomass was detected for soybean in the biota soils ( p = 0.09; Figure 5b ).

AbDv was smaller in the Practice Group (2057.34±249.07) compared with the No-Practice Group (2903.38±207.24) (p<.05) and it showed a tendency to decrease between day of pre- and post-test which was marginally significant (3575.16±297.21 to 1385.56±95.98) (p = .09).

However, there was no difference between positive and negative distractors, p = 0.23, and a marginally significant difference between positive and neutral distractors, p = 0.09.

There was a marginally significant effect of action-congruency, F (1, 15) = 3.41, p = .09; η 2 = .19; and no significant effect of movement-congruency, F (1, 15) = .02, p = .90; η 2 = .00.

Results of a 2 (affect) × 2 (task conditions) ANOVA showed that the main effect of affect was marginally significant, F (1,60) = 3.03, p = 0.09, 95% CI = [–0.01, 0.14].

Although the interaction effect was not significant, it has to be noted that in the unfair precue condition, there was a marginally significant simple slope for the regression of the endorsement of unjust foils on victim sensitivity, B = 0.32, t (27) = 1.76, p = 0.09.

In both species, the normalized RNA:DNA ratio was positively related to the total food uptake as reflected by the CINC+NINC values, the effect being significant for Eurytemora ( R 2 = 0.63, p < 0.03) and marginally significant for Acartia ( R 2 = 0.40, p > 0.09; Figure 4 and Supplementary Table S8 ).

The moderating effect of gender on the relationship between mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal was marginally significant ( b = −0.02, p = 0.09).

The shoot biomass of this plant in the fungal mixture did not differ significantly from any of the fungal monocultures, but it was marginally significant to the Fusarium monoculture ( p = .09) (plants were on average almost 60% smaller in the mixture treatment compared to the Fusarium monoculture).

For both the daily difference score and recall after one day models, there was a marginally significant difference between the overall in-vivo score model compared to the individual drink in-vivo scores model ( p = 0.09).

Last, our study demonstrated a non-statistically but marginally significant improvement in term of ORR (71.4% vs. 51.6%; P = 0.09) or PFS (18.5 vs. 11.7 months; P = 0.07) with the addition of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide.

The same ANOVA also yielded marginally significant effects of continuum type [ F (1, 9) = 3.90, MSE = 897, p < 0.09] and a vowel duration × continuum type interaction [ F (5, 45) = 2.24, MSE = 2070, p < 0.07].

Notably, the interaction among IC ability, emotional valence and language was marginally significant, F (1, 82) = 2.940, p = 0.090, η p 2 = 0.035.

Next, the within factor showed a significant effect for the family role ( F (1,63) = 21.95, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.26) and a marginally significant effect for the family role and group membership interaction ( F (1,63) = 2.48, p = 0.09, η 2 = 0.04).

5 B ), the PER group showed marginally significant increases compared with the SHAM group for average baseline ( F (1,17) = 3.11, p < 0.09) and significant increases for the short condition ( F (1,17) = 5.68, p < 0.03).

In earlier work in Bangladesh, with children of similar ages, we reported negative associations between As measured in blood and WISC-IV Working Memory that remained marginally significant ( p < 0.09) with adjustment for other contributors ( Wasserman et al. 2011 ).

However, we note that the difference in willingness for finger prick between the two groups is marginally significant, p = 0.09, yielding a larger effect size, r = 0.42 than willingness for taking strong medication, r = 0.29.

There was marginally significant exponential decay relationships between increases in root length in the topsoil at the grain filling stage due to e[CO 2 ] and responses in grain yield ( p = 0.09) and HI ( p = 0.08), suggesting a trade-off in carbon (C) allocation between roots and above-ground biomass.