“only marginally significant”

For second-line drugs, the ensemble model (91.8% [89.6–94.0%]) outperformed MD-CNN (90.3% [87.9–92.7%]), although this result was only marginally significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Benjamini–Hochberg FDR p = 0.09).

Although only marginally significant ( P = 0.09), E2R had higher activity than E2V, which corresponds to the slightly higher fitness observed for E2R in individual growth assays (fig.

While only marginally significant, the ERN measured by the Flanker task predicted startle magnitude ( b = 0.04, SE b = 0.02, β = 0.37, p = 0.09), whereas age did not ( b = −0.01, SE b = 0.01, β = −0.18, p = 0.38), once the two variables were considered together in the analysis.

It is important to note that the facilitation effect in the N25 condition was only marginally significant, F (1, 59) = 3.04, p = .09, η p 2 = .05, and as such, the facilitation effect mostly stemmed from the N75 condition in which the facilitation was significant, F (1, 59) = 10.32, p < .01, η p 2 = .15.

Despite this marked increase, the change compared to ∆FD seq was only marginally significant based on a one-sided Wilcoxon test ( p = 0.09; Fig. 4 c) although this could be due to the small sample size of complex gene families. ∆FD gene of complex gene was also elevated in Sistrurus compared to the overall venom (median ∆FD gene of complex gene families = 0.76; Fig. 4 d) albeit not significantly ( p = 0.56); however, it presented a similar median percent contribution to overall functional divergence (80%).

Further, the match > mismatch contrast seemed to characterize the decrease better than the linear contrast, which was only marginally significant (contrast M = 0.005, SD = 0.014, CI: [−0.001–0.012], t (18) = 1.76, P = 0.09, Cohen’s d = 0.40, see Fig. 3 ).

In the TGF-β2 regression model, population was significant (β = 2.19, p < 0.0001), while it was only marginally significant in the IL-1ra regression model (β = 0.72, p = 0.09).

Although this effect was just slightly smaller than that of lexical animacy, it was only marginally significant, β = 0.48, SE = 0.28, p = 0.09.

Health consciousness was only marginally significant (p = 0.090).

This relationship was only marginally significant among those participants who reported high PWB (+ 1 SD), B = .25, t (76) = 1.71, p = .09.

Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analysis Although the funnel plot of early pregnancy loss rate was asymmetrically distributed, Egger’s test analysis showed only marginally significant publication bias ( p = 0.09).

However, such a linear trend was only marginally significant for moderately difficult tasks, t (146) = 1.69, p < .09.

In contrast, under the TSST condition, IRI scores for females are positively associated with Dictator Giving, however are only marginally significant [b(zIRI) = 1.3 CI (−0.23–2.78), p = 0.09].

While the difference between the stuttering job candidates who did and did not acknowledge their speech dysfluency was only marginally significant, F (1, 51) = 2.92, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.05, for the impression question alone (acknowledgement: M = 5.50, SD = 1.29; no acknowledgement: M = 4.38, SD = 1.66), the difference was significant, F (1, 51) = 7.33, p = 0.01, η p 2 = 0.13.

As can be seen in Fig 1 (top), the PE of the old adults (9.55%) was lower than that of the young adults (14.32%), although the effect was only marginally significant, F (1, 42) = 3.10, MSE = 323.59, p = .09, η 2 p = .07.

Simple effects tests showed that dyads who could see their partner’s bodily movements moved more when their partner’s facial movements were also visible ( b = 0.04, p < 0.001, d = 0.89); this effect of bodily movement was only marginally significant when their partner’s facial movements were not visible ( b = 0.01, p = 0.09).

Search time (1‐>10) We found a main effect of Threat Intensity ( F (2,86) = 4.92, p = .009, ɳ p 2 = 0.103), and pairwise comparisons revealed that search time was slower when the image was neutral ( M = 11.80, 95%CI = 11.10–12.50) compared to when it was moderately threatening ( M = 11.30, 95% CI = 10.60–12.00; t (43) = 3.08, p = .008), but the effect was only marginally significant for the difference between neutral and highly threatening distractors ( M = 11.40, 95% CI = 10.70–12.10; t (43) = 2.03, p = .09).

2), but these differences were only marginally significant (p < 0.09).

Importantly, the three-way interaction between SOA, previous congruency and current congruency was only marginally significant, F (2, 44) = 2.56, p = .09, r = .32.

Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated the following pattern of findings in children's proportion of category-match choices: 5-year-old children made significantly more category-match choices than both 4-year-olds and 3-year-olds (both ps < 0.05), 4-year-old children also made more category-match choices than 3-year-old children but this difference was only marginally significant, p = 0.09.

The main effect of sex was only marginally significant, F (1,47) = 3.00, MSe = 1.273, p = .090; and the sex by course type interaction was not significant, F (1,94) = 1.05, MSe = 0.316, p = .354.

The interaction was only marginally significant (Estimate = 0.81, z = 1.69, p = .09), but it suggests that compared to Experiment 1, only young adults (Estimate = 2.44, z = 4.27, p < .001) changed their responses, but not older adults (Estimate = 1.07, z = 1.86, p = .24).

The treatment factor was only marginally significant (χ 2 (3)=6.33, p=0.09).

This effect was only marginally significant (p=0.09) likely due to considerable intertumoral heterogeneity in response to RCT as suggested by shallow dose–response curve (Figure 4 b).

DIC fluxes tended to increase with oyster biomass, but were only marginally significant (p = 0.09, R 2 = 0.31; Fig 4B ).