“a marginal trend”

While the difference did not reach statistical significance after Bonferroni correction, a marginal trend towards better survival was observed in the CTD-UIP group compared to the asbestosis-UIP group ( p = 0.017).

For WT mice only, the effect of treatment appeared to have a marginal trend toward a decrease in size (− 3.4%, p < 0.03, q < 0.16).

For Q3, the results indicated a marginal trend towards significance between Models E and F ( p = 0.0520), while the other comparisons showed no statistically significant differences.

Furthermore, visceral adiposity index (VAI) and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) showed a marginal trend towards statistical significance, increasing in VAI and decreasing in NFS ( p = 0.053 and p = 0.063, respectively).

There was a marginal trend toward a significant interaction effect between location and restriction period ( χ 2 (4) = 9.32, P = 0.054), driven largely by differential changes in the recruitment locations during the pandemic (Figure 4b ).

delayed recall) revealed a marginal trend in the opposite direction as predicted ( F (1,51) = 3.86, p = 0.055, η 2 < 0.001, BF incl = 0.287 ).

In addition, the chi-square test revealed a marginal trend between the level of children’s ToM and the fairness of sharing, χ 2 (1, N = 95) = 3.68, p = 0.055, and children with a higher level of ToM were more significant in allocation justice, χ 2 (1, N = 95) = 4.96, p = 0.026. 2.4.3.

SNR = 12 dB) did not significantly affect speech recognition scores in any mask condition, although we observed a marginal trend towards significance in the KF94 mask condition ( p = 0.055). 3.2.2.

However, no significant RAEs were found among defenders ( p = 0.13, ID = 1.27), while forwards showed no significant RAEs but presented a marginal trend ( p = 0.056, ID = 1.38).

A marginal trend toward apathy was observed ( p =0.058).

The analysis revealed a marginal trend in the supragranular layer ( p = 0.058) and a significant difference in the infragranular layer ( p = 0.029), whereas the granular layer did not show a significant deviation ( p = 0.62).

Moreover, a marginal trend towards significance was observed for increased CRP in the MRMP group (60.4% vs. 44.7%, P =0.059).

The percentage of fibers with internal nuclei was also 27% lower in the RFAT group than in the FAT control group, but this difference only showed a marginal trend that did not reach the level of statistical significance ( p = 0.059).

However, after training, there was a marginal trend indicating a higher reaction time in the control group compared to the experimental group ( F (1, 42) = 3.70, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.08) (see Figure 4 ). 4.2.

There was a marginal trend toward an increase in oral antimicrobials as measured by the dDOT/tDOT metric (0.32 vs. 0.34, p = 0.06).

Resampling statistics based on these difference scores suggested that the difference in latencies observed for the neutral distractor reliably differed from those observed for the reward-associated distractor ( p = 0.038), with follow-up contrasts failing to identify a latency difference between location classification and presence classification for reward-associated distractors ( p = 0.276) but identifying a marginal trend for neutral distractors ( p = 0.061).

Patients in Cluster 1 (N=26) were more frequently men (100% vs 17% in Cluster 2; p<0.0001) and smokers (80.8% vs 24.4%; p<0.0001), generally less educated (up to secondary education level: 46.1% vs 34.1%; p = 0.032) and mostly inactive workers (retired: 53.8% vs 17.1%; p<0.0001), with a lower income (≥25.000 Euros/year: 50.0% vs 26.8%; p = 0.002) and a marginal trend toward an older age (mean (SD) age: 60.7(13.3) vs 54.1(14.8); p = 0.061).

However, elevated SII showed a marginal trend on the risk of early nodal recurrence ( p = 0.065), while NLR was weakly associated with nodal failure ( p = 0.078).

Post hoc comparisons revealed significantly lower adaptation in Group C than in Group H in the third bin ( p = 0.003) and fourth bin ( p = 0.030), with a marginal trend observed for the fifth bin ( p = 0.068).

Gasdermin D revealed only a marginal trend to predict POD (OR 1.50 [0.97–2.32], p = 0.07), which faded when adjusted for covariates in models 2 and 3.

Finally, there was a marginal trend towards higher accuracy on not-valuable (NoGo) trials than valuable (Go) trials, F (1,27) = 3.45, p = 0.074, η p 2 = 0.11.

Our findings suggest that both types of novelty were represented in the memorability subspace following event boundaries, with strong evidence for co-occurrence novelty (R2 difference = 0.23, p = 0.009, from a one-sided permutation test) and a marginal trend for valence novelty (R2 difference = 0.10, p = 0.077), but not preceding them (co-occurrence novelty: R 2 difference = 0.03, p = 0.212; valence novelty: R 2 difference = −0.04, p = 0.892) (Fig. 5C , Supplementary Fig. 7A , B ).

Our data showed a marginal trend ( p = 0.081) of decreasing negative fraction of cortical coverage with age (Figure 2C ).

The analysis of whether the current pregnancy is the first one for the respondents shows a marginal trend towards significance (p = 0.082) suggesting a possible variation in family planning or birth intervals that does not reach conventional levels of statistical significance, but is still shaping migration processes (See Table 3 ).

A marginal trend ( p = 0.091) was found for sleep talking and total sleep duration ( p = 0.086) with no difference in REM sleep duration ( Supplementary Table S2 ).