“marginally significant”

For transparency, marginally significant effects (0.05 < p < 0.09) are also reported.

The non-significant correlation between masculinity and attractiveness ( r = −.02) reversed in direction, increased in magnitude, and became marginally significant ( sr = .22, t = 1.72, p = 0.09; see Figure 2C ) when judgments of aggression ( sr = −.37, t = −2.82, p < 0.01) were added as a simultaneous predictor (VIF = 1.76).

Based on the chi-squared test, the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.09).

A chi-squared test on the number of parents with primary/ secondary (education to 16 years) vs tertiary education revealed marginally significant site effects ( χ 2 = 6.52, p = 0.09), though given the size of the sample the differences were not pronounced.

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).

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 ).

Among edaphic predictors, soil pH exhibited a marginally significant positive effect on FEve (slope = 0.19, R 2 = 0.06, p = 0.09), while other FD indices remained statistically unrelated to pH, bulk density, total nitrogen, or elevation (Figure 3i–x ).

This difference was marginally significant, z (282) = 1.69, p = .09.

Simple slope analyses (See Figure 1 ) indicated that perceived parent support was associated with risk-taking behaviors marginally significant at low levels of self-control ( b simple slope = −0.04, t = −1.68, p = 0.09), but the association was not significant statistically at high levels of self-control ( b simple slope = 0.03, t = 1.29, p = 0.20).

There was a marginally significant group × word-type interaction, F (1,45) = 3.00, p = 0.090, η 2 = 0.06.

2 ), with only a marginally significant difference between the percentage of krill and copepods eaten (Kruskal–Wallis, χ 2 = 2.88, p -value = 0.09).

Although the absolute values of these correlation values exceeded 0.4, none of them reached statistical significance after correcting for multiple comparisons; only the correlation of the post-target left transverse temporal - left middle temporal connection with reaction time was found to be marginally significant ( p = 0.090 after correction, marked by an asterisk in Figure 5 ). 3.5.

As Table 4 shows, we found a significant interaction effect (γ = 0.40, p < 0.01) between the employees’ gender and their WAL to predict their leadership potential rated by their supervisors, whereas employees’ WAL had a marginally significant negative effect (γ = −0.14, p = 0.09), and their gender (0 = woman, 1 = man) had a positive and significant main effect (γ = 0.32, p < 0.01).

In short, they showed that performing only an F 1 test dramatically increases Type 1 errors especially for between-item manipulations (in that respect, it is interesting to remark that a classical repeated measures F 1 analysis on the data of the main experiment of Experiment 2 yielded a marginally significant effect of word type ( F 1 (1,19) = 3.3, p = .09)).

In comparison of total scores (maximum of 80 points) reached in the questionnaires, we have found marginally significant increase by 4.05 points after 4 weeks of Robuvit administration ( p = 0.0905).

Self-enhancement, the expressive promoter, influenced boycott participation significantly and positively in t 0 (B = 0.27, Wald = 11.20, p ≤ 0.001), and had a marginally significant influence in t 1 (B = 0.26, Wald = 2.86, p = 0.091).

The analysis revealed marginally significant differences between locations (p = 0.091) and depths (p = 0.073), suggesting potential vertical migration of MPs and regional variation in contamination levels.

Marginally significant difference was shown in time to occlusion and period of primary stent patency [4.5 (1.0–10.3) months vs 19.0 (8.0–37.5) months, P = .091 and 16.0 (6.0–56.0) months vs 6.5 (1.0–17.5) months, P = .076].

This effect was marginally significant for the 2500 Hz tone ( Z = −1.69, p = 0.091).

The y ‐intercept was marginally significant ( P = 0.091).

The hand * sex interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 99) = 2.90, p = 0.091, η 2 p = 0.02, while the main effect of hand was non-significant ( p = 0.475).

Post-hoc analysis showed significant difference between pre- and post- training at 16 ( P = 0.002) and 24 ( P < 0.001) cpd, marginally significant difference at 8 cpd ( P = 0.091), but no significant difference at 0.6, 1, 2, 4 and 36 cpd ( P ≥ 0.150) with HOA correction; significant difference at 16 ( P = 0.023), 24 ( P = 0.002), 36 ( P = 0.004) cpd, marginally significant difference at 0.6 ( P = 0.055), 1 ( P = 0.050), 2 ( P = 0.098), 8 ( P = 0.077) cpd, but no significant difference at 4 cpd ( P = 0.264) without HOA correction.

There was a marginally significant increase in the proportion of PrCa CpGs in upstream ( P = 0.091), ncRNA intronic ( P = 0.078) and 5’-UTR + intronic + 3’-UTR ( P = 0.074) regions and a near significant decrease in intergenic region ( P = 0.051) compared to the set of all CpGs tested (Supplementary Data 4 ).

A significant interaction between EPIC1 expression and menopausal status was observed ( p = 0.034; Figure 4 ), which was marginally significant after adjustment (adjusted p = 0.091).

Although marginally significant ( p = 0.091), the proportion of young participants was higher among those who passed the test than among those who failed.