“marginally significant”

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

Score on Conflict ANT was marginally significant, β = −0.150, p = 0.096, and no other variables were significant, p s > 0.116.

The difference in P100 is marginally significant ( p = 0.096).

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.

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).

at least one low) (HR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.02–1.71, Wald’s p = 0.034, log-rank p = 0.034), while when combined with TOP2A the prognostic value for the co-expression was marginally significant (HR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.95–1.80, Wald’s p = 0.096, log-rank p = 0.095) ( S3 Table ).

The effect was significant for 14/92 neurons (2 negative and 12 positive) and marginally significant at the population level (second-order t test: t(91) = 1.68; p = 0.096; Fig 4L ).

The E-Fit group showed a marginally significant interaction effect in the whole body areal BMD at the 6- ( p = 0.096) and 12-month follow-ups ( p = 0.085).

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.

When the goal was close to being reached, there was a marginally significant effect of number of donors, B = .73, z = 1.66, p = .096.

When deer with AC and CC were compared, there was a marginally significant association to CWD susceptibility and CC deer showed a reduced CWD susceptibility compared to AC deer ( OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.103–1.135, p = 0.096, Fisher’s exact test, two-tailed) ( Figure 4(b )).

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.

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).

Analysis of the bias scores revealed a marginally significant main effect of provocation, F (1,18) = 3.08, p = 0.096, ω 2 = 0.09, with provoked participants showing more interference ( M = 11.7, SE = 6.5) for all emotional expressions (i.e., they were slower to name the color of emotional compared to neutral expressions) than the non-provoked participants ( M = −4.4, SE = 6.5).

Repeated analysis in male patients showed a similar but marginally significant difference ( t (28) = – 1.757, p = 0.096).

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).

Finally, after FDR correction, a marginally significant two-way APOE ε4 ∗ HpVR interaction for delayed recall in MCI subjects was observed ( p = 0.096), and thus this finding requires replication.

For instance, three categories of prior healthcare employment were associated with a higher starting wage among BSN-educated RNs, but only one category had a marginally significant ( p -value = 0.096) association for Associate-educated RNs, thus supporting our hypothesis 1 particularly among BSN-educated RNs.

After one year, the improvement in the oral health-related attitude of parents and children’s oral health behavior was marginally significant in the intervention group compared to the control group [0.2 (0.17) vs. -0.13 (0.05), p = 0.096] and [0.06 (0.06) vs. -0.05 (0.04), p = 0.09], respectively.

An increasing proportion of females was observed in the Central Sound (R 2 = 0.512, F (df = 1; 20) = 21.01, p = 0.00018; in years prior to 2019, R 2 = 0.670, F (df = 1; 18) = 36.6, p < 0.0001) and a weak, marginally significant relationship was observed with time in Outer Norwalk Harbor (Fig. 4 ; R 2 = 0.154, F (df = 1; 17) = 3.102, p = 0.09616).

Anxiety, though, demonstrated a marginally significant positive relationship with this subscale (β = 0.19, SE = 0.11, t (267) = 1.669, p = .0964).

Still, at sucrose concentrations between 0 and 50 mM, the ability to choose the higher concentration was somewhat weaker (65%–67%) when compared to the ability to choose to feed on 75 versus 25 mM (74%) (marginally significant, p ≤ 0.0966, one-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparisons to the 0 versus 10, 25, and 50 and 10 versus 50 mM sucrose choice assays) or 300 versus 50 mM (88%) (p ≤ 0.0074, one-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparisons to the 0 versus 10, 25, and 50, 10 versus 50, and 25 versus 75 mM sucrose choic

Relationship between spectral coherence and diffusion-tensor-MRI measures Canonical correlation between the discriminant-analysis- identified Coherence Factors-7,-12, and-15 and the diffusion-tensor-MRI measures, (corpus callosum radial diffusivity, cingulum fractional anisotropy, and internal capsule radial diffusivity) was marginally significant (χ 2 =14.79, df =9, P =0.0968).

There was a marginally significant main effect of Response Side ( b = –0.0076, t = –1.6574, p = .097), with a tendency to respond slower with the left hand.

The average values of eLORETA current density (log transformed) at different cortical regions were summarized in Figure 2(d) and were compared using ANOVA with factors of “ROI” and “group.” It revealed a main effect of “ROI” ( F = 50.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.62) where alpha oscillatory power at the parietal and occipital lobes were greater, but the main effect of “group” was marginally significant ( F = 2.93, p = 0.097, η p 2 = 0.086) suggesting that patients tend to exhibit greater alpha oscillation power.