“marginally significant”

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 3-way interaction of Training group × Time × Category was marginally significant ( F (2,54) = 2.51, p = 0.097, η 2 = 0.09).

A marginally significant positive correlation was found during Stroking ( ρ = 0.34, p = 0.097, BCa 95% CI − 0.139–0.691) and Playing ( ρ = 0.41, p = 0.070, BCa 95% CI 0.037–0.682).

The full model for landscape level abiotic variables was not significant for the community of parasitoids, whereas it was marginally significant for the community composition of drosophilids ( p = 0.097) explaining about 34% of the observed variation.

In addition, the theta power for the restrained eaters under the no-think condition was much higher (marginally significant) than that under the think condition for high-calorie food stimuli ( p = 0.097), which was not identified in the control group.

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.

A binary logistic regression analysis revealed a main effect of mating motivation ( α = 1.37, SE = 0.63, Waldχ 2 (1) = 4.73, p = .030; Exp(B) = 3.94), and the Mating × Gender two-way interaction was marginally significant ( α = 1.34, SE = 0.80, Waldχ 2 (1) = 2.75, p = .097; Exp(B) = 3.80).

As represented by the stratification analysis ( Table 2 ), this effect, although marginally significant in POSH data ( P = 0.097, HR = 0.75, 95% C.I.= 0.53, 1.06), has similar patterns in both data sets ( Figure S1 ) and the significance is largely improved in the pooled analysis ( P = 0.0035, HR = 0.73, 95% C.I. = 0.59, 0.9).

This analysis demonstrated that contingency was still a marginally significant predictor of sensorimotor alpha suppression at post-test, beta = −.554, p = .097 (lower 95% CI = −1.531, upper 95% CI = .156).

After adjusting for multiple comparisons, there was a marginally significant difference between category 1 and 2 (0% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.097).

Besides, the analysis also showed that the interaction variable of exposure × social support was a marginally significant predictor of outgroup attribution (β = −0.10, se = 0.01, p = 0.097).

For the head we observed a significant main effect of valence ( F 1,90 = 18.32, p <0.001), with more positive values for positive than negative scenarios, no significant main effect of scenario ( F 3,270 = 1,17, p = 0.323) and a marginally significant interaction valence x scenario ( F 3,270 = 2.12, p = 0.097).

Chi-square tests revealed significant demographic differences between the clusters in terms of age ( χ 2 (4) = 10.78, p = 0.029) and continent ( χ 2 (3) = 25.54, p < 0.001), and marginally significant differences for educational level ( χ 2 (4) = 7.86, p = 0.097) and robot encounters ( χ 2 (2) = 5.28, p = 0.071).

In regard to spontaneous gamma activity, there was a marginally significant negative association among baseline gamma in the primary somatosensory cortex and CD4 nadir ( P = 0.097), as well as a robust relationship amongst these variables in the left DLPFC, [ R (85) = −0.33, P = 0.009; Fig. 5] .

This improvement in prediction was marginally significant, model-based p = 0.097 and prediction R 2 p = 0.101, rendering it unclear whether the small increase in predictive power afforded by amygdala connectivity was due to chance.

The teams’ average FWHR remained a marginally significant predictor of total points negotiated ( b = 1.31, SE = 0.78, t [109] = 1.67, p = 0.097) and the teams’ maximum FWHR remained a significant predictor of total points ( b = 1.23, SE = 0.57, t [109] = 2.16, p = 0.033).

The value of the dissimilarity index increased as ΔF increased (Spearman's rho = 0.46, p < 0.0001) and, across all channels from all patients, showed a marginally significant difference based on percept alone ( W + = 3427, p = 0.097) in the expected direction (i.e., greater dissimilarity indices for 2- vs. 1-stream percepts), suggesting a propensity for activity during 2-stream percepts to be more similar to activity evoked by large ΔF conditions.

However, frass P concentrations declined as grasshopper density increased, and the correlation between frass P and grasshopper density was marginally significant ( n = 5, r = −0.809, P = 0.097) at treatment-level ( Fig. 2h ) and highly significant ( n = 45, r = −0.467, P = 0.001) at quadrat (cage) level ( Fig.

The difference between the two experiments was marginally significant [ t = 1.454, df = 967, P = 0.097].

For the third control variable, spatial ability, an ANOVA showed a marginally significant main effect of emotional design [ F (2,222) = 2.35, p = 0.097, η p 2 = 0.02].

The effect of food is marginally significant at 13°C ( F (1, 285) = 2.77; P = 0.097), but still the biphasic growth model gave better performance in ‘fed’ condition compared with the ‘non-fed’ condition ( Fig. 3A ).

The main effect of base attractiveness was marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 2.901, p = 0.097, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\eta_{p}^{2}$$\end{document} η p 2 = 0.071.

When verifying hypothesis 2.3, the ANCOVA for heart rate variability as a dependent variable showed a marginally significant effect for low vision accessibility features ( F ( 1 , 18 ) = 3.034 , p = 0.097 , η 2 = 0.026 , C o h e n ′ s F = 0.41 , p w r = 0.41 ), showing marginally lower HRV for websites with low vision accessibility enhancements ( M = 0.155 , S E = 0.124 ) than for websites without those adjustments ( M = 0.481 , S E = 0.124 ).

For the primary outcome at 12 months, the difference favored teacher-led intervention but it was marginally significant (−1.06, −2.31 to 0.19; p=0.097).

Interaction between the two factors was marginally significant [ F (1, 18) = 3.083, p < 0.097].