“only marginally significant”

sublimis , g 1 was included despite population effects being only marginally significant ( p = 0.0731).

However, the association with DSS was only marginally significant ( P = 0.074) (Fig. 3 F).

However, in boys, puberty asynchrony was negatively associated with peer victimization, although the association was only marginally significant ( r = −0.12, p = 0.074).

At high (+1 SD ) levels of belief in the body as holy, such association was only marginally significant, b = -0.03, SE = .02, p = .074.

An elevated MF was also detected at 50 mg/kg bw/day, but this was only marginally significant ( P = .074), likely due to the unusually high variability in the control group at this time-point ( Table 2 ).

A similar pattern was evident for ovipunctures on soybean, although the effect was only marginally significant due to a smaller sample size and large variation in female activity (4.67 ± 1.41 vs. 1.89 ± 0.57; F = 3.334; df = 1,52; P = 0.074).

Movement times tended to be somewhat slower on aligned trials than on misaligned trials, but the effect was only marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.31, p = .074, η 2 = .05.

PERMANOVA indicated differences among site groups ( F = 2.226, P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.12) and years ( F = 4.6196, P = 0.004, R 2 = 0.24), while interaction between time and site group was only marginally significant ( F = 1.143, P = 0.074, R 2 = 0.12).

3 Results As listed in Table 1 , students in the intervention group showed improved total scores of prosocial behaviours' tendencies after the six‐session intervention, though the increase was only marginally significant ( p = 0.074).

1000 ms SOA), though that effect was only marginally significant, r (31) = 0.326, P = .074, bootstrapped 95% CI = [−0.008, 0.602].

Three of 20 (15.0%) GADAb-positive patients required insulin treatment compared to 24 of 442 (5.4%) GADAb-negative patients, a difference which was only marginally significant ( P =0.074).

f value was also higher at post-FR30 compared to post-run for BFL, although the result was only marginally significant ( p = 0.074; d = 0.91). f value was not significantly different at post-FR30 compared to post-run for SM ( p = 0.485; d = 0.4). f value returned to post-run level at post-FR60 in all three muscles (all p > 0.05; all d < 0.2).

Entering strength of reprocessing in SWS and time spent in this sleep stage in a regression model, we found that only strength of reprocessing in SWS was a significant predictor of memory consolidation and explained a larger part of the variance ( β =0.335, P =0.006, explaining 11.2% of the variance), whereas duration of SWS was only marginally significant ( β =0.214, P =0.074, explaining 5.2% of the variance).

Once again, tangible support had a significant protective effect against MCR by 30.7% (aHR: 0.693, 95% CI [0.511–.938], p = .018), but the overall social support score was only marginally significant ( p = .074; Supplementary Table 2 ).

A linear mixed model including POO and the interaction term as predictors was only marginally significant [ χ 2(3) = 6.93, p = 0.074].

When we merged data of TG and TT genotype carriers together and compared their pooled frequency versus that of GG genotype in a model of logistic regression analysis taking into account the age effect, we observed a higher frequency of GG in patients than in controls, although the difference was only marginally significant (OR = 1.773; 95% CI = 0.947–3.320; P = .074; Table 3 ). 3.2.

This statistical difference between the prevalent staining groups was only marginally significant ( P = 0.074), but it should be borne in mind that it was detected on a small number of abnormal Pap smear cases ( N = 32).

However, the difference between asymmetrics and symmetrics was only marginally significant for the full-length CENH3 ( P = 0.074) and insignificant for the N-terminus ( P = 0.550).

Results Variation in body condition, migration timing and distance and survival in relation to age and sex Differences in body condition of juvenile and adult individuals were only marginally significant in females (mean SMI ± s.d.; juveniles: 622.5 ± 73.0 g, n = 16; adults: 666.6 ± 68.2 g, n = 20; Student’s T -test: t = − 1.851, df = 31.24, p = 0.074) and non-significant in males (juveniles: 526.9 ± 51.0 g, n = 7; adults: 544.3 ± 60.4 g, n = 11; Student’s T -test: t = − 0.656, df = 14.53, p = 0.522).

Regression results showed that judgments about how fear-causing statements would make others feel were the strongest predictors of psychopathy, although only marginally significant, r = -.29, p = .074.

In Experiment 7, the difference between cups with DESS and dry cups was only marginally significant after removing outliers ( P = 0.074 and 0.099 for large and small traps, respectively).

The correlation between observed and predicted AU2ROC is positive and statistically significant only for the MP ( Figure 7A , r = 0.36, P = 0.0232) while it is not statistically significant for the QSR ( Figure 7C , r = 0.06, P = 0.7233) and only marginally significant for the SCR ( Figure 7B , r = 0.29, P = 0.0741).

Further, although having tried to quit using drugs in the past six months was associated with higher resilience in the unadjusted model (B = 4.72, p = 0.092), this association was only marginally significant after adjusting for confounders (B = 4.98, p = 0.075).

In-depth examination using partial correlation analysis, while controlling for age and generalized anxiety, indicated that anxiety and anger under gaming conditions displayed only marginally significant correlations with gaming disorder scores (mean anxiety-disorder score: r = 0.296, p = 0.075; mean anger-disorder score: r = 0.319, p = 0.054).

However, for both men and women, these differences were only marginally significant between positive and negative conditions (for men: b = 0.99, SE = 0.56, t = 1.78, p = .075, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−1.10, 2.09] (See S3 Table in S1 File ); for women: b = −1.14, SE = 0.61, t = −1.87, p = .063, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−2.34, 0.06] (See S4 Table in S1 File ).