“only marginally significant”

While controls achieved significantly better performance under the pre-focus condition than the post-focus condition [F(1,36) = 20.83, p <0.0001], the effect of focus on amusics' performance was only marginally significant [F(1,36) = 2.87, p = 0.099].

The difference from control in the mask condition was only marginally significant, t (6) = 2.00, p = 0.099, and there was no difference in the “none” condition, t (6) = 0.35, p = 0.741.

At low intensity, the slope was positive but only marginally significant ( b =3.77, SE = 2.26, 95% CI [–0.72, 8.25], t (109.3)=1.67, p=0.099).

After adjustment for confounders (smoking status and pulmonary comorbidities), the odds ratio (OR) became only marginally significant (p = 0.099), but the magnitude of the effect estimate was similar (OR = 16.00 [0.59, 433.03]).

However, while lower acceptance of harsh discipline against women and children were observed in the treatment group, these differences from the waitlist group were only marginally significant when reported by men in this pilot trial (acceptance of harsh discipline against women β=−0.45; 95% CI: −0.97 to 0.08; p=0.099; acceptance of harsh discipline against children β=−0.89; 95% CI: −1.86 to 0.08; p=0.073).

severe: −0.12 (−0.21, −0.03), while the association between manganese and lateral mitral annular velocity was only marginally significant [<10 vs. ≥10: 0.07 (−0.01, 0.15); P = 0.099].

The interaction effect of treatment and year was included in the best model for maximum daily temperature, but this was only marginally significant (χ 2 = 2.72, df = 1, p = .099).

A similar, though only marginally significant, pattern in overall group differences was found for HSD11B2 (p = .099) and ZNF507 (p = .092).

The same GP score predicted OS after diagnosis on the validation dataset as a dichotomous variable (p = 0.0182), but was only marginally significant as a continuous variable (p = 0.0994).

Attentional drifting showed only marginally significant differences for the experimental condition (F (3,135) = 2.403, p < .1, η 2 = 0.05) with a trend toward highest attentional drifts during the selective attention condition.

Given that ANOVA is known to be underpowered for detecting significance of genotype x environment interaction ( Wahlsten, 1990 ) we have decided to proceed with post-hoc tests for multiple comparisons among treatments even when G i xG s interaction were only marginally significant (p<0.10).

Though only marginally significant ( p < .1), CWM SLA, A mass, and N mass, also tended to decrease with canopy cover (Figure 5 ).

We observed that the sex chromosome has fewer female-biased microRNAs (∼3-fold change) than expected by chance, although the difference is only marginally significant (p = 0.10).

In the study conducted by de Campora and colleagues [ 76 ], the association between maternal mentalization (assessed during pregnancy) and children’s BMI (at 3 years of age) was only marginally significant (r = −2.96; p < 0.10).

In Gacyacyari (local variety), only marginally significant (p< 0.1) increases of δ 13 C were found for soluble sugar in the YFEL and cellulose in lower leaf for plants under water deficit.

The Condition × Session interaction was only marginally significant [ F (1, 11) = 3.15, p = 0.10]: the level of performance of dyslexics was higher after CMT than before for both normally spoken words (after: 81% and before: 73%) and for lengthened words (after: 69% and before: 52%).

In addition, while the Group × Block interaction was only marginally significant ( F (3,63) = 2.17, p = 0.10), both the increase in N400 from Block 1 to Block 2 and the decrease from Block 2 to Block 3 were significant for MUS (Block 1: −2.79 μV, SD = 1.66; Block 2: −5.46 μV, SD = 2.10; Block 3: −2.23 μV, SD = 2.04; Tukey, 1 vs. 2: p = 0.02, and 2 vs. 3: p = 0.005; main effect of Block: F (3,33) = 5.34, p = 0.004) but not for NM (main effect of Block: F (3,30) = 1.13, p = 0.35; see Figures 4A,B for topographic distributions of effects).

However, post‐hoc simple slopes analyses indicate that the negative slope for ethnic minority students was only marginally significant ( p < .1), and the slope for native Dutch students was non‐significant.

In contrast, more boys than girls screened positive for SOR at age seven years although the difference was only marginally significant (60 girls, and 82 boys; OR = 1.2, 95%CI 1.0–1.6, p = .10).

The only marginally significant predictive factor was self-control with regard to dedication (standardized coefficient = 0.23; p = 0.10). 3.3.

The interaction of PRONOUN*INFLECTION*GROUP was only marginally significant ( F (1,37)=2.85, p =0.1).

However, linked fate is only marginally significant with political participation (p < 0.1) and immigrant linked fate is strongly significant (p < 0.01).

However, the difference was only marginally significant ( P < 0.1).

The main effect of time was only marginally significant for accuracy [ F (1, 42) = 2.9, p = 0.1], which suggested only modest increases in task accuracy for all children from pre-test ( M = 91.3%, SE = 7.2%) to post-test ( M = 93.8%, SE = 0.8%).

Although the effect on cyber-offending appears to be much stronger, the difference in effects is only marginally significant ( χ 2 (1) = 2.83; p < .10).