“marginally significant”

Lower socio-economic scores were correlated with lower adherence to healthy pattern among children ( P = 0.003 for boys, P = 0.091 for girls, marginally significant).

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 ).

The interaction effect between decision-maker role and tDCS group was marginally significant ( F (2, 72) = 2.48, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.07).

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 ).

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).

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 ).

Although the subsequent univariate tests indicated a small marginally significant difference among artistic careers in extrinsic motives and the intrinsic to extrinsic ratio the Bonferroni post hoc showed no differences among them (lowest p = 0.091) (for details, see Figure 8 ).

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

We found a marginally significant European Identity × Political Tendency ( b = −0.08, p = 0.091) on the Scarce Jobs argument but not a National Identity × Political Tendency interaction ( b = 0.03, p = 0.692).

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

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].

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).

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].

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.

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).

First there was a significant main effect of human intervention whereby human players caused autonomous agents to exhibit less entropy in their distributions over agents in view, F (1,59) = 21.43, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.058; and a marginally significant main effect of movement type, F (2,59) = 2.41, p = 0.091, η p 2 = 0.014.

There was also a marginally significant main effect of success for FC between the right dlPFC and the right parietal ROI ( F (1,18) = 9.63, p = .091, η 2 = 0.342).

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).

As shown in table 4 , association results from multiple logistic regression were similar to those of the bivariate analysis for emotional violence, except that experience of job change in the past year at individual level was marginally significant (OR=2.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.72, p=0.0913) and several variables at the relationship level were no longer statistically significant, including having a husband with gambling experience, having neighbours to help with a family accident and having a husband with history of physical abuse by family members.

A marginally significant correlation with lymph node status was detected: 82.6% of the cases presenting RQ ≤ 2.00 showed less than four positive lymph nodes ( P = 0.0915).

Additionally, fit_ss_dayt_sedentary_min contributes to a log-odds increase of 0.09526 units, although this association is marginally significant ( z -score: 1.686, p = 0.0918).

For the separate lines, the difference in free asparagine concentrations between both triple null lines, 23 and 59, and wildtype was shown to be significant ( p = 0.0402 for line 23 and p = 0.0122 for line 59, t ‐test) while that for the A genome null line, 178, was marginally significant ( p = 0.0919, t ‐test).

For GSE83300 , the low-risk group had a longer OS compared to the high-risk group, with marginally significant difference (logrank P =0.09198; Figure 5D ).

Further analysis revealed a marginally significant difference between L1 and L2 switch costs under the fearful condition ( p = 0.092), with L2 switch costs being marginally smaller than L1 switch costs, indicating a slight asymmetry between L1 and L2 switch costs under fearful emotion.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between congruency and consciousness, F (1,38) = 3.0, p = 0.092, η p 2 = 0.07, indicating a slightly larger congruency effect in the conscious group ( M : 5.3%), compared to the unconscious group ( M : 3.0%).