“marginally significant”

For decision making, only total effect was marginally significant and small (β = 0.119, p < .05), but neither direct nor indirect effects were significant.

The effect of Condition in both age-groups concerning the duration of navigation was marginally significant ( p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.06) but a post hoc pairwise Tukey test indicated no significant differences.

Compared with MAG-BERT and HyCon, BMRN has a marginally significant advantage ( p < 0.05) in Macro-F1-4 and Macro-F1-2.

Finally, variance in offspring activity was marginally significant in the post-exposure period of the behavioural assay (Levene’s test: F 3,197 = 2.58, p = 0.05), with the lowest variance being in offspring of fathers exposed to visual cues only (control offspring standard error: 4.58; visual: 2.64; olfactory: 3.93; visual and olfactory: 4.41).

For RS, the omnibus test indicated message condition was marginally significant on perceived absolute ENDS risk, F (2, 192) = 3.02, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.03.

Differences in saturated fat intake were marginally significant between the two experimental PDA arms relative to the control arm ( p -value = 0.05).

The proportion of correct looking was significant for the 2‐syllable sequences [mean = 0.62; t (24) = 2.17; p = 0.04; Cohen's d = 0.43], and it was marginally significant for the 3‐syllable trials [mean = 0.39; t (24) = −2.09; p = 0.05; Cohen's d = −0.42].

This IaPS effect was enlarged for individuals with ASD, as indicated by a marginally significant interaction term ( χ 2 (1) = 3.85, p = 0.050), which contradicts a putative in-group advantage.

Microbial beta diversity analysis showed a marginally significant difference in overall community composition across groups (R 2 = 0.033, p = 0.05).

Number notation had a marginally significant main effect (Greenhouse–Geissler-corrected for violation of sphericity assumption, F (1.287,12.873) = 4.332, p = 0.050, partial η 2 = 0.302) due to larger congruency effect for digits (87 ± 27 ms) than for dice (64 ± 25 ms; Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparison: MD = 23 ms, p = 0.005).

For VO2 peak, there was no significant association in the gross model (B = 9.1; 95% CI: -1.4 to 19.7; p = 0.09), but after adjustment, the result became marginally significant (B = 9.3; 95% CI: -1.5 to 20.1; p = 0.05), suggesting a possible trend toward improvement.

Compared with the reputation group and the regardless-of-reputation group, according to the linear regression results, the interaction term between reputation constraint and agent type has a marginally significant impact on sharing behaviors ( F = 3.981, p = 0.050), indicating that when the participants are of different types, the impact of reputation constraints on sharing behaviors is significantly different.

Time effect was not significant but, even with limited amount of staff turnover data, the MBPBS condition had marginally significant effect ( p = .05) compared to the PBS condition with standardized β of − 0.22 that explained 5% of variance in these data.

There was a marginally significant interaction between haptic strength and modality, b = -0.21, 95% CI = [-0.42, 0.00], χ 1 2 = 3.82, p = 0.05, suggesting that the relationship between haptic strength and iconicity was stronger in signed languages.

A marginally significant 3-way interaction ( F (1,50) = 4.0, p = 0.05) reflected presence of a Category Size × Age interaction for concrete ( F (1,50) = 8.66, p = 0.005) but not abstract items ( F (1,50) = 0.11, p = 0.74).

The results showed that only feedback type was marginally significant for the main effects, F (1,44) = 4.057, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.084.

Increasing PP resulted in a marginally significant reduction in Ca absorption ( P <0·05), whereas increasing NPP had a positive effect on Ca absorption ( P <0·001).

In addition, trust in people had a marginally significant effect on social empathy ( β = 0.100, p ≤ 0.05), and had a significant effect on subjective well-being ( β = 0.223, p < 0.001).

Statistical analysis showed an increment in the affected hemisphere for all patients during the online modality (statistically significant for P1 and P3: p < 0.00001; marginally significant for P2: p < 0.05 without correction).

The SnIPRe-like analysis gave similar results, with strongly negative genome-wide and immune-pathway estimates of the selective effect, but with substantially higher and marginally significant estimates for RNAi genes ( fig. 8 B ; mean selection effect = 0.015; P < 0.05).

Caution nonetheless needs to be taken when interpreting this finding because the interaction term was marginally significant ( p = .05).

The full regression model was marginally significant ( P =.05), explaining 11% of the variance of offline engagement ( F 3 =2.719; R 2 =0.111).

Similarly, the indirect paths from TV viewing and computer use were significant (TV: β = −0.03, z = −2.14, P = .02; computer: β = −0.04, z = −2.51, P = .006), and the indirect path from sitting at work was marginally significant ( β = −0.02, z = −1.64, P = .05).

These data align with the findings of Williams study, which demonstrated that exposure to depression was associated with a 1.45-fold increase in odds of fracture, albeit marginally significant ( P = .05), among women aged 20 to 93 years (median age 50.4 years) participating in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study, after adjusting for age.

Corresponding percentages for awareness of the effect of general health on oral health were 67% ( n = 74) and 87% ( n = 91) in the two groups, with both differences being marginally significant ( p = 0.05 ).