“a marginal trend”

Among patients with CMV, IE1-induced IFN-γ responses were significantly higher ( P < 0.05), whereas pp65-induced IFN-γ responses showed a marginal trend ( P = 0.072).

Notably, the previously significant global strength difference between the clinical and subclinical groups became non-significant after covariate adjustment (S = 0.740, p = 0.386; GS clinical = 4.563, GS subclinical = 3.823), as did the difference between the subclinical and HC groups, which showed a marginal trend after adjustment (S = 1.099, p = 0.072; GS subclinical = 3.823, GS HC = 4.922).

The interaction between host‐plant species and assemblage connectivity showed a marginal trend ( t = 1.82, p = .072), and accordingly, there was a significant positive effect of connectivity for assemblages inhabiting C. spinosus ( t = 2.58, p = .012), but no significant effect on A. fasciculatum ( t < 0.01, p = .997).

The association between the IVC AP/T ratio and 30-day mortality demonstrated a marginal trend (p=0.073).

Urban residence demonstrated a marginal trend (p=0.073), with all four positive cases residing in urban areas (7.4% prevalence in urban residents versus 0% in rural residents), which is compatible with the possibility of higher TB exposure in densely populated urban settings but cannot be confirmed from our data.

For ACLEW, the diagnostic group did not significantly improve model fit for any measure (all p > 0.05, though AWC showed a marginal trend with p = 0.073), with additional variance explained ranging from 0.2% to 0.6%.

Consistent with this interpretation, tests of multivariate dispersion did not detect significant heterogeneity among ENSO groups for Aitchison distances (betadisper, p = 0.191) or Jensen–Shannon distances ( p = 0.101), whereas Bray–Curtis showed only a marginal trend ( p = 0.073).

WWTP B ) showed a marginal trend ( p = 0.074).

A marginal trend suggested that older participants scored higher on Perceived Social Addiction ( M = 2.15 vs. 2.03), t = −1.79, p = 0.074.

A marginal trend was observed for parahippocampal volume (p = .074); no difference was found for hippocampus.

While baseline stress showed a marginal trend toward mood reduction ( b = −0.128, p = .074), baseline anxiety and resilience were not significantly associated with immediate outcomes.

Finally, there was a marginal trend for geminate fricatives to have a lower mean Harmonic-to-Noise ratio (HNR) than singleton fricatives (0.8 < 4.0 dB), t (14) = 1.91, p = 0.074, i.e., to be “noisier.” The same trend was found with the vowel preceding /t:/ compared to /t/ (9.7 < 12.7 dB), t (22) = 1.93, p = 0.063.

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.

Also, there was a marginal trend ( P = 0.075) for the control cohort, as compared with the intervention cohort, to consider participation in the study as a charitable activity rather than as a social obligation.

The comparison between control and Dif-MSCs groups revealed only a marginal trend ( p = 0.075), while no significant difference was found between MSCs and Dif-MSCs ( p = 0.329).

Unlike the lipidomic profile, none of the immune markers reached statistical significance (p-value <0.050, q-value <0.200), although TNF-RI showed a marginal trend (HR = 3.83; p-value =0.075, q-value =0.286).

Oral health exhibited a marginal trend towards cardiometabolic health (β = −0.101, p = 0.075).

In contrast, greater contralateral abdominal muscle activation during the APA phase showed a marginal trend toward a stronger association between pain and motor control impairment (interaction p = 0.076).

This model was additionally characterized by a marginal trend for DHEA (negative, p = 0.076), whereas estradiol showed no statistically significant association ( p = 0.094) and BMI was excluded from the final equation.

There was a marginal trend toward the association of RYGB with the occurrence of MU ( p = 0.076 (Table 3 ).

Among these, only the model for escape latency showed a marginal trend, with higher doses associated with greater effects (β = −0.0043, p = 0.0766), and residual heterogeneity reduced to zero ( I 2 = 0%, R 2 = 100%) ( Supplementary Figure 5A ).

Emotional valence showed only a marginal trend (estimate pos. ± SE = –0.355 ± 0.472, estimate neg. ± SE = 0.620 ± 0.44, χ 2 = 5.135, df = 2, P = .077).

A significant interaction was found between gender and cybervictimization ( B = 0.053, p = .006), while the interaction between gender and pedagogical communication showed a marginal trend ( B = − 0.063, p = .077).

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 ).

Pulse duration showed a marginal trend with SLc ( χ 1 2 = 3.13, p = 0.077).