“marginally significant”

Third, regarding the test of the indirect effects of empathic concern, perspective taking, and personal distress on the relation between attachment avoidance and altruistic behaviors, results indicated that the mediating effect of empathic concern was significant, β = −0.229, SE = 0.074, p = 0.002, Bootstrap 95% CI = [−0.432, −0.026] (medium effect size) [ 58 ]; the mediating effect of perspective taking was marginally significant, β = −0.051, SE = 0.030, p = 0.091, Bootstrap 95% CI = [−0.128, 0.026] (low effect size) [ 58 ]; and the mediating effect of personal distress was not significant, β = 0.003, SE = 0.011, p = 0.761, Bootstrap 95% CI = [−0.043, 0.043].

In comparison, the meta-analysis concluded a marginally significant difference in clinical success in favour of the BD group at 6 months (p = 0.091).

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

For BN, changes in thoughts associated with ‘ dietary restraint ’ were marginally significant, indicating a slight increase from pre- ( M = 11.15, SE = 9.32) to post-binge ( M = 14.86, SE = 13.38; W = 99.5, p = 0.091, Cohen’s d = -0.055), whereas no significant change emerged for individuals with BED (pre: M = 12.0, SE = 9.76, post: M = 11.07, SE = 9.80; W = 39.5, p = 0.354, Cohen’s d = 0.20).

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 late negative deflection was marginally significant at Fp1 [ F (1, 6) = 4.03, p = 0.091].

The difference between the RTs to targets containing non‐ foot semantic radicals preceded by foot image primes (645.16 ms) and to those preceded by control image primes (672.71 ms) were marginally significant ( t (30) = −1.748, p = 0.091).

The main effect of group was marginally significant ( F (1, 48) = 3.042, p = 0.091).

It had a very weak, non-significant positive correlation with BP (Spearman’s rho = 0.02, p = 0.626), and a weak, marginally significant positive correlation with comorbidities (Spearman’s rho = 0.068, p = 0.091).

For ITC, a marginally significant group-by-ISI interaction was observed ( p = 0.091, Fig. 2A ).

The correct sentence should read as follows (revisions in bold): “Results for the change in ADAS-cog scores showed a marginally significant overall treatment effect (P = 0.091) and a non-significant interaction of treatment with time (P = 0.883).” These corrections have no impact on the conclusions of the study outcomes.

Analyzing the intercept data, the main effects of configuration and epoch were not reliable, but the two-way interaction of configuration × epoch was marginally significant [ F (6,108) = 1.881, p = 0.091, η 2 = 0.095].

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).

The main effect of Reading Time was marginally significant, χ 2 (1) = 2.85, p = .091.

Overall, the effect of group on age was marginally significant (p = 0.091, Supplementary Table S1 ), but post hoc t-tests (corrected for multiple comparisons) showed participants with anosmia were significantly older than their counterparts with normosmia ( p < 0.05, Fig. 1 .) In total more men participated (25 women, 38 men); however, there were more women (10) than men (6) with hyposmia (Fig. 1 .), with a marginally significant effect of group on gender (p = 0.097, Supplementary Table S1 ).

1C ) and marginally significant difference in Replicon_GC% (variable p = 0.091) and in the copy number of Set_ID12 ( p = 0.080), Set_ID16 ( p = 0.091), Set_ID8 ( p = 0.079), Set_ID23 ( p = 0.072), and Set_ID27 ( p = 0.091).

These differences were marginally significant (p = .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).

Property victimization was marginally significant ( p = 0.091), suggesting a potential influence.

There was a marginally significant interaction of ROI × Group ( F (5,23) = 1.94; P = 0.091), suggesting that differences between the two groups in the nature of word-selective processing were dependent upon the location along the posterior–anterior axis of the OTC.

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.

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

However, a marginally significant association was found between the cetuximab and non-cetuximab groups ( P = 0.091).

Within the healthy-weigh group, there was a marginally significant difference [ F (1,114) = 2.933, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.038].

It is important to note that negative symptoms were marginally significant ( p = 0.091), but post-hoc comparisons indicated that Biotype 3 exhibited greater symptom severity compared to Biotype 1 ( p = 0.040, Fig. 2A ).