“marginally significant”

Classroom organization The interaction between stress and feasibility was marginally significant in predicting observations of teachers’ classroom organization ( B = −0.41, SE = 0.24, p = 0.09).

Main effect of language was marginally significant, F (1, 40) = 3.03, p = 0.09, η 2 = 0.07.

To improve the model fit, tree basal area was added as a direct predictor of Δ mineralization at 5–15 cm since this term was marginally significant predictor ( P = 0.09, Appendix S1 : Table S3 ).

The results indicate that the 9-month-olds showed a marginally significant change when the goal-related accuracy rate was compared to the identity-related accuracy rate, Z = −1.69, p = 0.09, but no significant change when it was compared to location-related accuracy rate: Z = −0.04, p = 0.97.

Additional results Narrative coherence at T2 was found to have a marginally significant, small to moderate negative correlation to familial risk factors ( β = −0.18, p = 0.09).

When varying explanation type by disease, migraine was found to be nonsignificant ( P =.65) and temporal arteritis, marginally significant ( P =.09).

The tobacco environment is marginally significant ( p =0.090) while sociopolitical orientation is not significant ( p =0.555).

Interestingly, all four sexual systems are present in both subgenera, with a statistically similar frequency ( P > 0.43 for all the sexual systems, except for hermaphroditism, that showed marginally significant differences P = 0.09) (Fig. 3 ).

The whole model analysis, which included the stimulus tested, the source of the flies (trapped as adults or emerged from pupae collected from nests) and their sex, was marginally significant (GLM maximum likelihood x 2 = 6.31, p = 0.09, n = 77).

There was a significant between-subjects effect of group, Wilks’ Λ = .93, F (2, 104) = 4.00, P < .05, and a significant within-subjects effect of time (pre to post), Wilks’ Λ = .78, F (2, 104) = 14.52, P < .001, but only a marginally significant within-subjects effect of time by group, Wilks’ Λ = .95, F (2, 104) = 2.52, P = .09.

A repeated-measures ANOVA with violation (violation or no-violation) and response (“old” or “similar”) revealed an interaction between violation and response (marginally significant in experiment 1: F (1,27) = 3.05, P = 0.09; η p 2 = 0.1, and significant in experiment 2 that involved stronger predictions and violations: F (1,27) = 5.59, P = 0.024; η p 2 = 0.17).

Although a treatment effect ( P < 0.0001) was observed in the determination of mechanical nociception threshold among all treatment groups, meloxicam expressed marginally significant effects ( P = 0.09) among NSAID treated groups dehorned.

This difference was marginally significant (Mann–Whitney U test, U = 55, p = 0.090).

The results indicated that the main effect of group and pre-/post- sequence were not significant, whereas the interaction effect was marginally significant, F (1,10) = 2.02, p = 0.09, one-tailed, partial η 2 = 0.17.

The results of these tests revealed that only appearance effects were significant for the expressive ( F 1,91 =5.9; P =.03), useful ( F 1,91 =13.75; P <.001), durable ( F 1,91 =3.83; P =.05), and smooth ( F 1,91 =23.78; P <.001) subscales, marginally significant for the graceful subscale ( P =.09) but not significant for the controllable subscale.

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 ).

Gender was a marginally significant factor for depression ( r = 0.04, p = 0.09).

Results Pre-registered analysis To address our pre-registered hypothesis ( https://osf.io/ht3yn ), we conducted a chi-square test and found a marginally significant difference in attendance rate between the two conditions [ X 2 (1,263) = 2.86, p = .09].

month of measurement, was not statistically significant 1 minute after intake (P = 0.53), but marginally significant 15 minutes after intake (P=0.09).

The difference between arms A and C was marginally significant ( P = 0.09), but the difference between arms A and B was not significant ( P = 0.20; Fig. 3a ).

However, this association was marginally significant ( p = 0.09).

The cumulative reproductive rate for wingless males was higher than that for winged males, although this result was marginally significant only for fertilization rate ( Figure 1c ) ( U , calculation based on mating rate: U = 105, p = 0.09; calculation based on fertilization rate: U = 108, p = 0.05).

PC1 (overall size axis) showed a weaker, marginally significant positive correlation (estimate = 1.355, OR = 3.87, 95% CI 1.21–41.62, p = 0.090; Table 6 ).

A cluster-permutation test on the single-subject TRFs (from –0.05 to 0.05 s) revealed a marginally significant greater negativity for the peak for the TRF trained with the data from the nonpredictive compared to the predictive condition (0.035–0.05 s; p = 0.09).

For the latency of P1, an identical ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of load ( F (1,11) = 3.4, p = 0.09) with delayed latency for high vs. low loads, and a significant main effect of emotion ( F (2,10) = 4.99, p < 0.05).