“marginal significance”

Besides PDC a marginal significance (p=0.042) was obtained for geographical origin.

The risk for ICU admission showed marginal significance (weighted IRR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.01–1.79, p = 0.0424), but this difference was not significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons.

30) and shows marginal significance in Syl20:1 ( P = 0 . 044), although no individual group differences are statistically significant in post hoc comparisons ( P > 0 . 05).

reported shorter AL in CSCR patients versus controls (23.52 ± 0.84 mm versus 23.94 ± 1.05 mm) with marginal significance ( p = 0.044) [ 16 ].

Only one marginal significance was observed between May and August samples by unweighted UniFrac (adjusted p = 0.045), which can diminish if the ASV table is re-rarefied.

Models were not over-dispersed (GLMM Experiment I,PC1 : P = 0.936; GLMM Experiment I,PC2 : P = 0.96; GLMM Experiment II,PC1 : P = 0.92.; GLMM Experiment II,PC2 : P = 1.0; GLMM Experiment III,PC1 : P = 0.856; GLMM Experiment III,PC2 : P = 0.88), no outliers were detected (all GLMMs: P = 1, except GLMM Experiment II,PC1 : P = 0.285), and visual inspection of the Q-Q plots confirmed the normality of the residuals with a single exception at the marginal significance level (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, GLMM Experiment I,PC1 : P = 0.046; GLMM Experiment I,PC2 : P = 0.671; GLMM Experiment II,PC1 : P = 0.336; GLMM Experiment II,PC2 : P = 0.964; GLMM Experiment III,PC1 : P = 0.705; GLMM Experiment III,PC2 : P = 0.570).

When the severity of hepatic fibrosis was calculated for each case using CPC, it displayed marginal significance (p = 0.046).

Would participants perform better, after Block 1, once they knew that they were disoriented and that their internal perception of orientation was incorrect? Surprisingly, the Vibrotactile group showed minimal learning on Day 2 ( Table 3 ; Figure 2 ), only learning to reduce the frequency of Crashes with a marginal significance ( p = 0.047).

Only the auditory variance correlated negatively with hallucinatory experiences at marginal significance (without multiple comparison correction, r = −0.498, t 16 = −2.223, p = 0.047, p corr = 0.141, BF 10 = 1.439; S3 Table ).

The correlation between the positive rate of ZPR1 and the degree of differentiation had marginal significance ( p = 0.047).

Nevertheless, we found those in severe depression before surgical treatment (10 patients) showed a decrease in the serum IL-6 level with marginal significance (3.30 pg/mL vs. 1.94 pg/mL, p = 0.047).

However, when we adjusted to BMI, the difference was then only marginal significance between the two groups (p = 0.048).

However, HER2 status demonstrated marginal significance (p = 0.048), and a higher proportion of patients with high T stage (T2 and T3) and high N stage (N2 and N3) were observed in the ALNM high burden group.

[ 37 ] reported that patients with <15 lymph nodes examined and tumor size of >3 cm could achieve DSS benefit from AC with marginal significance ( P = 0.049).

Interestingly, the model indicated that the stimulation threshold would be lower in patients with recurrent metastasis with marginal significance ( p = 0.049).

Alcohol consumption showed marginal significance in hypercholesterolemia (8.94%; p = 0.049). 3.3 Comparative oral health profiles Results in Table 2 showed significant links between hypertension, self-perceived oral health, dental checkup frequency, and presence of filled teeth (all p < 0.001).

We found a marginal significance when comparing wound swabs and biopsies in terms of unsuccessful isolation of pathogens (20 vs. 17, p = 0.05).

A total of 165 protein-CAD associations were identified at the marginal significance level ( p < 0.05) through the proteome-wide MR analysis.

Offline engagement was partially explained in the model including readiness to change as the predictor but with marginal significance ( F 3 =2.719; R 2 =0.111; P =.05).

In terms of study design, cohort studies showed higher UA levels in severe cases with marginal significance ( P = 0.05, Hedges’ g = 2.49, 95% CI 0.02–4.97, I 2 = 98.11%, 2 studies), while cross-sectional studies did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.08, Hedges’ g = 4.00, 95% CI − 0.44 to 8.44, I 2 = 99.09%, 4 studies).

After the removal of associations with P-HEIDI <0.01, a total of 247 CpG sites near 115 unique genes passed the marginal significance (P < 0.05) ( Table S2 ).

No significance in BMI was observed between the two interventions overall and in individual follow-up periods, except for a marginal significance (p = 0.05) favoring RYGB in the two to three-year interval.

Additionally, certain indicators exhibited marginal significance differences (0.1 > p > 0.05), such as DriSucc% in the elite group and GCA, ShortCmp, Def 3rd, Mid 3rd and DriMis in the control group.

robustus , which showed a marginal significance (Z = 2.00, SD = 0.04, P = 0.05).

Univariate Kaplan–Meier/ Log-rank analyses revealed that high-grade adenosarcomas and tumors with SOG statistically showed marginal significance (p=0.05).