“marginally significant”

Marginally significant associations were observed for substance use (OR = 0.262, p = 0.094) and high/very high HIV viral load (≥10,000 copies/mL, OR = 0.457, p = 0.094).

Leaders again perceived the intervals to be shorter than followers, F (1, 22) = 8.02, p = 0.010, η 2 p = 0.27, and this effect was qualified by a marginally significant interaction, F (1, 21) = 2.65, p = 0.094, η 2 p = 0.20.

Fitness to drive The first step of our analysis ( Table 4 ) involving cognitive predictors ( Table 1 ) for fitness to drive (currently fit versus currently unfit to drive), allowed a marginally significant prediction of fitness to drive ( χ 2 = 6.40, p = 0.094) with an overall accuracy of 72.5% and with maze processing time as significant predictor ( p = 0.042).

Marginally significant group differences were found, t (7) = −1.93, p = 0.094, d = 1.03.

The associations of eQTLs and pQTLs for PCSK9 with vascular calcification were marginally significant (−0.05 SD units in AAC quantity per SD reduction in PCSK9 expression level; 95% CI −0.12 to 0.01; P = 0.094; −0.17 SD units in AAC quantity per SD reduction in PCSK9 level; 95% CI −0.32 to −0.02; P = 0.029) [Supplementary Table 4, Supplementary Figure 3, http://links.lww.com/CM9/C517 ].

We find no statistically significant impacts of LEAP1000 on birthweight among the overall complete-case sample, although there is a marginally significant increase in average birthweight (82 g; p = 0.094).

The genotype by temperature interaction was marginally significant in both segments ("GxT" effect, p = 0.094 and p = 0.073, respectively) (Figs 4B , 4C and S5 ).

Chi‐square tests revealed a marginally significant association between treatment group and the proportion of participants demonstrating reliable improvements in YOQSR2.0 scores, Χ 2 ( df = 1, N = 106) = 2.80, p = .094, V = 0.16.

Interestingly, a marginally significant three-way interaction between Belief, Desire and Stimulation ( p = 0.094, β = −0.003) was also detected.

With addition of exploration time and interactions in Step 2, the model reached significance [ F (12,66) = 2.022, p = .036, R 2 = .269]; the R 2 increase from Step 1 to Step 2 was marginally significant (ΔR 2 = .136, Δ F = 1.901, p = .094).

Statistical analysis revealed that the P value is marginally significant ( Figure 7 , P = 0.094, Spore + G-CSF + EPO vs.

Race by gender interaction term was marginally significant on glycemic control (B = 0.34, 95% CI = −0.24–3.00, p = 0.094).

Before washing, a marginally significant difference was found between the median depths of mucus covering the mucosa and covering cancer tissue (100.7 μm vs. 48.9 μm; P = 0.094); in contrast, after washing, no significant difference was found in this comparison (36.8 μm vs. 26.1 μm; P = 0.570).

There was an increase (linear P = 0.010) in hot carcass weight (HCW), with a marginally significant increase in carcass yield (linear, P = 0.094) with increasing withdrawal period.

However, a marginally significant association between high CHOP expression and ATF3 expression was observed ( p = 0.095) (Table 2 ).

Finally, a marginally significant interaction was found between SCHEMA and MEMORY LEVEL ( F (1,47) = 2.91, p = 0.095), suggesting that it might be possible that differences between the schema conditions are somewhat larger for global recognition (mean difference = 0.42, SD = 0.51) than for detailed recognition (mean difference = 0.30, SD = 0.46).

Community trait dispersion patterns In our linear mixed model, SES values were significantly different between sampling season (χ 2 = 8.9, df = 1, p = 0.003) and trait type (χ 2 = 35.6, df = 4, p < 0.001), but the interaction was marginally significant (χ 2 = 8.0, df = 4, p = 0.095).

The effect of Number of pairs was marginally significant, F (2, 138) = 2.38, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.03, (two pairs, M = 0.40; SD = 0.26; three, M = 0.47; SD = 0.21; four, M = 0.37; SD = 0.20), and the Distance * Number of pairs interaction effect was not significant, F (2, 138) = 0.006.

Illicit drug use (DAST-10) was more common in the problem gamblers than controls (χ 2 = 6.46, df 1, P = 0.011), with a marginally significant difference between the alcohol-dependent group and controls (χ 2 = 2.79, df 1, P = 0.095).

Moreover, we found a positive and marginally significant correlation between the target of boundary management and the boundary management–team performance effect sizes ( r = .12, p = .095), with this positive relationship being slightly more pronounced for extraorganizational targets (ρ = 0.40, 95% CI [0.29, 0.51]) than intraorganizational targets (ρ = 0.34, 95% CI [0.27, 0.41]).

A two-way ANOVA with the factors odor (2: chocolate, popcorn) × social identity (2: Swiss primed with Swiss identity, non-Swiss primed with Swiss identity) on intensity difference scores revealed a marginally significant interaction [ F (1, 48) = 2.90, p = 0.095, η 2 = 0.057].

In addition, depression and trait anxiety were significantly correlated ( r = 0.525, p < 0.001); after controlling for depression, the left AI-right dACC and right AI-right dACC FC correlations with anxiety were marginally significant ( r = −0.219, p = 0.095; r = −0.224, p = 0.087).

However, the risk of soft tissue disorders such as tendon injuries was marginally significant (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.97–1.49; p = 0.095).

The verbal learning scores were marginally significant (r=0.22, p=0.095; figure 5 ).

The difference in alcohol use between T0 and T3 was marginally significant (β = −3.62, t (169.8) = −2.50, p = .095).