“marginally significant”

Additionally, there was a marginally significant main effect of group on RT, F (1,36) = 2.943, p = 0.095, partial η 2 = 0.076, with post-hoc tests showing that the RT of music trainees was longer than that of non-music trainees.

Additionally, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between time and test, exhibiting a medium effect after the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied (F = 2.659, p = 0.095, partial η2 = 0.081, medium effect).

Positive aging perception significantly enhanced gerontechnology confidence (β=.462; P <.001) and comfort (β=.323; P =.047) and exhibited a marginally significant positive relationship with control beliefs (β=.228; P =.095).

Moreover, a marginally significant effect was also found for IMPs from pretreatment to posttreatment ( p = .095).

Beta There were significant main effects of region ( p < 0.001) and group ( p = 0.031), along with a marginally significant Region × Condition × Group interaction ( p = 0.095) and a non-significant effect of condition.

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).

More severe patients seem to have the following characteristics: older age; higher frequency with underlying diseases; higher maximum body temperature within 24 hours after hospitalization; longer time for virus clearance (from illness onset to turning negative) and duration of fever (days); higher plasma C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, procalcitonin (PCT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST); larger count of white blood cells (WBC) and neutrophil (NE), but relatively reduced lymphocyte count (marginally significant; P = .095); higher NE to lymphocyte ratio (NLR); and higher initial viral load (Ct and log 10 [copies/mL]) (except lymphocyte [ P = .095], all P < .05) ( Table 1 ).

Furthermore, excellent reduction compared to other quality of reduction caused a marginally significant reduction in VAS pain score (unstandardized β coefficient: -0.89, 95% CI: -1.93 to -0.16, p = 0.095) (Table 5 ).

It became marginally significant when demographic variables were not controlled for ( p = 0.095).

Linear regressions revealed a marginally significant negative effect of α-T on biomass of target plants ( F 1,14 = 3.19, P = 0.0959, r 2 = 0.19), and a significantly negative effect of BBT on biomass of target plants ( F 1,14 = 4.71, P = 0.0476, r 2 = 0.25).

Population growth shows a marginally significant negative trend with HR increase and there is a higher population growth rate among municipalities with lower levels of HR (p = 0.096).

The omnibus test found marginally significant differences in the amount of diagnostic agreement and disagreement between the four groups, χ 2 (3, N = 120) = 6.34, P = 0.096 (see Table 2 ).

The ANOVA shows a main effect of the time of the question (F (1,58) = 31.9, p<10 −4 ) but no main effect of group (F (1,58) = 0.23, p>0.6) and a marginally significant interaction between these two factors (F (1,58) = 2.86, p = 0.096) indicating that controls' confidence increased a bit more than that of patients.

Results suggested that the main effect of gender on prejudice was marginally significant, F (1,66) = 2.85, p = 0.096, η p 2 = 0.041, with female participants ( M = 2.91, SD = 0.63) holding more prejudice than male participants ( M = 2.62, SD = 0.81).

Happiness A mixed ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction between valence and component, F (1,454) = 2.79, p = 0.096, η p 2 = 0.01, which was not qualified by a 3-way interaction, F (3,454) = 1.80, p = 0.147.

Variance partitioning confirmed the overwhelming effect of elevation, explaining solely 14.8% variation ( F = 2.5, P = 0.048), but also significant was the net effect of the cushion (4.2%, F = 1.9, P = 0.042), and marginally significant the elevation × cushion interaction (9%, F = 1.3, P = 0.096).

To do this, we built on Model 1 (described earlier) and added Learning ETG disclosure and Instrumental ETG disclosure, resulting in a marginally significant change in R 2 ,Δ R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.096.

For positive outcomes, only a marginally significant trend was found between the predictable and unpredictable conditions ( t (35) = −1.71, P = 0.096, d = 0.20, mean difference = −22.20, 95% CI of the difference = [−48.56, 4.17], paired t -test, two-tailed).

Marginally significant correlations were observed for SE with EL domains ( r = 0.15, p = 0.096) and PH with AL domains ( r = 0.17, p = 0.08).

Results The PERMANOVA including both species and FL factors identified significant differences in the elemental concentrations and their ratios and in the metabolomes of the needles of the three species (pseudo‐ F = 42.3; P < 0.0001), identified marginally significant differences between the FLs (pseudo‐ F = 1.9; P = 0.096) and identified significant differences in the species × FL interaction (pseudo‐ F = 2.7; P < 0.05) (Table 1 ).

A one-way ANOVA analysis of JNDs showed that there was a marginally significant difference between the three background colors ( Figure 3 ), F(2, 44) = 2.48, p = .096, η p 2 = 0.06.

The remaining direct effects of motion on appeal ( B = 0.09, SE = 0.09, t (153) = 1.03, p = 0.306, d = 0.163) and taste perception ( B = 0.03, SE = 0.11, t (153) = 0.25, p = 0.802, d = 0.04) were not significant, but there was a marginally significant remaining direct effect of motion on healthiness perception ( B = −0.13, SE = 0.08, t (153) = −1.68, p = 0.096, d = −0.266).

The same analysis was repeated for the identified correlations with all outliers included, which returned marginally significant correlations between trait anxiety and the left pars opercularis ( r = – 0.215, P = 0.096), and between trait anxiety and the negative bias in RT ( r = 0.226, P = 0.081).

There was also a marginally significant interaction between sex and site (PERMANOVA: R 2 = 3%, p = 0.096), driven by greater proportions of Scorpaeniformes, Perciformes, and Pleuronectiformes in female scats at Comox; however, there was no significant interaction between sex and year (Table 3 ).

The association between the donation history and intention to donate again was marginally significant ( p = 0.096).