“marginally significant”

The ANOVA model showed a statistically significant main effect for Forthcomingness ( F = 9.657, p = 0.002) and marginally significant main effect for Investment Horizon ( F = 11.442, p = 0.001) on Change.

Correlations between Urinary Metals, U-PHE, and 8-oxodG Significant, or marginally significant, linear correlations were found between 8-oxodG and the following metals: Mn (r = 0.354, p = 0.001), Tl (r = 0.321, p = 0.002), Zn (r = 0.309, p = 0.003), As (r = 0.309, p = 0.003), Pb (r = 0.283, p = 0.007), Co (r = 0.239, p = 0.024), Ba (r=0.213, p = 0.045), Cr (r = 0.213, p = 0.045), and Cd (r = 0.194, p = 0.071).

However, the predicted interaction between compensation and nation remained marginally significant, although the effect of compensation was slightly stronger among Americans, t (50) = 12.15, p < 0.001, d = 1.63, than among Japanese t (49) = 8.54, p < 0.001, d = 1.22.

One day after the transplant (i.e., day 1), variation in gut microbial community composition were mainly explained by the inoculum effect, while the recipient genotype only had a marginally significant effect ( p = 0.001 and 0.062, respectively; permutation MANOVA; Fig. 5b ).

For the EOS, a likelihood ratio test showed that the interaction between flow regime and drought status was marginally significant ( χ 2 (1) = 10.59, p = 0.001).

In line with these results, mosquitoes fed with dsCHIK1 did not show any significant reduction in viral titers after infection with CHIKV, whereas mosquitoes injected with dsCHIK1 showed reduced viral titers in whole bodies two days post-infection and marginally significant reduced titers five days post-infection ( Figures S5 A–S5C, Kruskal-Wallis test on log-transformed viral titers: day 2 p < 0.001; day 5 p = 0.04; Kruskal-Wallis test on prevalence: day 2 p = 0.18; day 5 p = 0.07; see Table S2 for individual comparisons).

When examining costs, switch targets showed marginally significant restart costs [ t (21) = 1.99, p = 0.059, Cohen's d = 0.20], while repeat targets showed highly significant restart costs [ t (21) = 5.60, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.43].

In the pRDA, the significance of RDA1 to RDA4 was confirmed through ANOVA ( p < 0.05), with RDA1 and RDA2 being highly significant ( p < 0.001), RDA3 significant ( p < 0.01) and RDA4 marginally significant ( p = 0.016) (Supplementary Data 8 ).

The correlation analysis of SR and FR emotions showed that SR valence and FR valence had a positive correlation, with ρ (32) = 0.87, p < .001, and so did SR arousal and FR arousal, ρ (32) = 0.40, p = .025 (marginally significant); SR sadness and FR sadness ρ (32) = 0.55, p = .001; SR happiness and FR happiness, ρ (32) = 0.87, p < .001; and SR anger and FR anger, ρ (32) = 0.60, p < .001.

Discriminability index ( d′ ) : A one‐way repeated‐measures ANOVA with four levels (word type: BW, TW, HFDW, LFDW) revealed a marginally significant main effect of word type, F (3, 177) = 13.65, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.19.

Standardized path coefficients for TDP and DOC regarding their effects on BA were positive and significant or marginally significant (TDP: 0.625, p-value<0.001; DOC: 0.460, p-value<0.05).

When gender, age, monthly income, and education level were included as covariates, an ANCOVA revealed that the activating effect on behavioral intention remained marginally significant ( F (1, 186) = 34.22, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.155).

Differences between samples were expressed as “not significant” ( P ≥ 0.05), marginally significant ( P < 0.05)*, significant ( P < 0.01)**, highly significant ( P < 0.001)***.

The threshold for statistical significance was set at *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001, with *p < 0.05 considered marginally significant, **p < 0.01 deemed highly significant, and ***p < 0.001 regarded as extremely significant.

Index values and mortality For both species, insecticide and exposure time were highly significant ( p < 0.001), while concentration was marginally significant for T. castaneum ( p = 0.036) and non-significant for T. confusum ( p = 0.161).

A probability of p < 0.10 was considered as marginally significant, of p < 0.05 as significant, of p < 0.01 as highly significant and of p < 0.001 as extremely significant.

Two-way mixed ANOVAs of time allocation showed in the IG group, a marginally significant main effect of activity ( F (3, 525) = 8.847, p < 0.001) and a highly significant interaction between activity and NAM ( F (3, 525) = 14.791, p < 0.001).

Strong significant main effects of set were found in T1, T3, and T4, and a marginally significant main effect of set were found in T2 [T1: F (2, 308) = 7.38, p = 0.001, p η 2 = 0.05; T2: F (2, 308) = 2.36, p =0.1, p η 2 =0.015; T3: F (2, 308) = 4.53, p = 0.012, p η 2 = 0.029; T4: F (2, 308) = 14.19, p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.084].

Similarly, maternal anxious parenting (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: [1.30, 2.51], p < .001), maternal overprotection (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: [0.98, 2.68], p = .057, marginally significant), and maternal rejection (OR = 5.52, 95% CI: [3.28, 9.36], p < .001) were associated with higher depression.

Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant interaction term and main effect of frequency ( P < 0.001) and a marginally significant overall effect of groups ( P = 0.05).

Similarly, the two-way ANOVA of reaction speed (see Figure 4(b) ) revealed a marginally significant difference for congruency [ F (1,16) = 206.08, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.93], with participants responding faster in the congruent condition (428.61 ± 41.40 ms) than in the incongruent condition (476.94 ± 42.12 ms).

After correction for multiple testing, a single interaction model in males composed of EOD, African ancestry, and socioeconomic status was marginally significant (IG = 5.11%, permutation unadj. p = 0.001) (Table 3 B).

Compared to the controls, our findings indicate a highly significant association between BRCA1 methylation and HGSOC ( p = 0.001 OR = 3.25, 95% CI = 1.58–6.68) ( Table 2 A), but only a marginally significant association between MGMT methylation and HGSOC ( p = 0.054, OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 0.98–4.62) ( Table 2 B). 2.6.

Statistically, differences between +snow and control plots were marginally significant in June 2006 ( F 1,6 = 3.773, P = 0.100) and highly significant in April 2008 ( F 1,6 = 40.60, P < 0.001).

In the Functional Reach Test, there was no significant difference between the pretest values ( Z = −1.07 and p = 0.28), but there were a marginally significant difference between the groups at posttest 1 ( Z = −2.01 and p = 0.04) and a highly significant difference between the posttest 2 values ( Z = −3.40 and p < 0.001) with the experiment group performing better.