Excerpts

(SMD = 0.88, P = 0.0004) However, when combining the adjusted OR (after adjustment for birth weight, gestational age and other factors) provided from individual studies, only borderline significant association were observed on duration of hyperglycemia with ROP (adjusted OR 1.08, P = 0.03); and no significant association on mean glucose level with ROP (adjusted OR = 1.08, P = 0.15).

Yet, there was a decreasing trend in the Moran’s value over time and reached the lowest value in 2013 ( I = 0.009, P -value = 0.03) (Table 1 ).

Gentoo penguin locations had higher RPD values compared to RPD values across the entire HFR field but these were weakly significant (p = 0.03, two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests respectively, Fig. 3b ).

A marginally statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups (p = 0.03).

Table 2 displays genotype frequencies from sample cohorts and as expected there are somewhat significant differences between the cohorts; Australian/Dutch and Polish/Dutch for SNP rs2075786, and Australian/Spanish for SNPs rs2736108 and rs7705526 (all p > 0.03).

A 2 (Cafe) by 2 (Period) ANOVA indicates that this change is marginally statistically significant (Main Effect of Cafe: F (1, 2146) = 4.73, p = .030, η 2 = 0.002; Main Effect of Period: F (1, 2146) = 10.02, p = .002, η 2 = 0.005; Interaction: F (1, 2146) = 2.97, p = .085, η 2 = 0.001).

Type 1 diabetes was nominally significant in IVW analysis in relation to POAG ( p = 0.03) but no statistically significant signals were obtained for this trait by the other MR methods used in this study (weighted median p = 0.07, weighted mode p = 0.10, MR Egger p = 0.19).

Low levels of phosphorylated alpha synuclein were detected in brain tissue fractions enriched for Lewy body pathology and were marginally significant between PD cases and controls (p = 0.03). status released display-pdf yes is-olf no is-manuscript no is-preprint no is-journal-matter no is-scanned no is-retracted no Received 2014 Apr 28; Accepted 2014 Jul 3; Collection date 2014.

The correlations were highly significant in the high-gamma range for all monkeys (Monkey 1: r = 0.85, p = 0.03; Monkey 2: r = 0.99 p = 2.76 × 10 −4 ; Monkey 3 r = 0.94, p = 0.005; Monkey 4 r = 0.97, p = 0.001).

Importantly, we found a highly significant positive correlation between the expression of GABBR1 and a NE marker ( ENO2 ) in NEPC samples (r = 0.539; p = 0.03; n = 15; Fig. 7b ) compared to CRPC samples (r = 0.223; p = 0.22; n = 32; Fig. 7b ).

Group comparison of pre-treatment BMI based on WHO criteria Although there were no significant differences in the mean values among the groups, the Jonckheere–Terpstra test showed a significant trend toward a stepwise increase in tongue pressure in each BMI group ( P = 0.03; Fig. 3 ).

Similarly, the association between WMH and global cognition as well as attention remained, while the associations between WMH and executive function or language showed a trend toward significance when adding Aβ-SUVR as a covariate in addition to adjustment for type-2 diabetes-related characteristics and ICV (β = − 0.02, SD = 0.01, p = 0.03 for global cognition, β = − 0.03, SD = 0.01, p = 0.03 for attention, β = − 0.02, SD = 0.01, p = 0.06 for executive functions, and β = − 0.02, SD = 0.01, p = 0.06 for language, Table 4 B).

No significant differences were observed between patients receiving carvedilol and bisoprolol except for a significantly higher rest HR and an almost significantly lower LVEF in the carvedilol group (respectively HR 70 ± 10 vs. 63 ± 10 bpm, p < 0.03, and LVEF 31.2 ± 6.8 vs. 34.6 ± 4.6%, p = 0.051) (Table in Supplementary Information).

Post-hoc analysis showed a trend toward increased external rotation (normalizing the movement pattern) after the intervention (T1–T2, p = 0.03, 64–100% of the movement cycle), which was not maintained at follow up (T1–T3, p > 0.05; T2–T3, p = 0.01, 72–100% of the movement cycle) (Fig. 5 A).

Additionally, the difference between the depression control and bipolar test groups was marginally significant ( p = 0.03), and a significant difference was found between bipolar test and bipolar control groups ( p < 0.01).

The interaction effects, emotion × aggression, F (2.31, 117.69) = 1.83, p = 0.16, η p 2 = 0.04, and emotion × group, F (2.31, 117.69) = 0.33, p = 0.75, η p 2 = 0.007, were also nonsignificant Interestingly, a quadratic contrast for facial emotion was marginally significant, F (1, 51) = 4.76, p = 0.03, suggesting slightly more errors for anger and sadness than for happiness, but this trend did not survive the omnibus test.

The differences between warm and recovery phase were only marginally significant ( p < 0.03) for trial 3 samples.

More interesting, ELHB1L1 , another gene of the risk model, revealed a clear trend, but the risk-score is more meaningful ( P = 0.03).

The new-onset psychoses and mania groups did not differ in gender distribution between 2019 and 2020, however the mean age of these patients showed a borderline significant difference in age, as patients in 2020 were younger compared to 2019 (median[IQR] = 29.0[18.79] and 34.75[21.75], respectively, p = 0.03).

When we turned to STR heterozygosity, the correlation (ρ = 0.89) becomes slightly significant (P = 0.03).

Specifically, significant correlations emerge in the right PPA ( r (14) = 0.015, p = 0.007), the right LOC ( r (14) = 0.022, p = 0.006), and marginal significance for the left FFA ( r (14) = 0.006, p = 0.030; does not survive FDR correction).

There was a marginally significant improvement observed in children with IH in whom the treatment was started after 12 months of age (p = 0.03).

The other nominally significant associations (swimming 25–50%, p = 0.030; cycling > 75%, p = 0.048; running > 75%, p = 0.016) were near the significance threshold and should be interpreted with caution, given the number of correlations examined and the small sample size.

There was a significant trend towards less sepsis-related GI complications in the probiotic group too (9% vs. 36%, P = 0.03).

While these differences did not reach statistical significance, total body water (29 ± 5 vs. 34 ± 4 L, P = 0.03), intracellular water (16 ± 3 vs. 19 ± 2 L, P = 0.04), and extracellular water (13 ± 2 vs. 15 ± 2 L, P = 0.03) were significantly lower in the HFrEF group.