“marginal significance”

Ki-67 was associated with PD, but with marginal significance (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.0–1.04; P = 0.054).

TGF-β C-del showed a marginal significance (p = 0.054) and the frequency of low producing genotype C/CC of TGF-β was highest among RE showing 2.6-fold (OR, 2.677; 95%CI, 1.06−6.74; p = 0.037).

Meta-analysis suggested a higher success rate in Biodentine group than CH group at a marginal significance (OR = 6.03, 95%CI: 0.97–37.6, P = 0.054; S5 Fig ).

In multivariable analyses, older age (odds ratio [OR], 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49–3.19; P < 0.001), low surgical volume (OR, 5.90; 95% CI, 2.10–17.01; P < 0.001), and high CPB time (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08–1.18; P < 0.001) were identified as significant independent predictors of early mortality, while blood hemoglobin level showed marginal significance (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54–0.99; P = 0.054).

Additionally, marginal significance was found in physical functioning (PF, p=0.054) and in role physical (RP, p=0.060).

A potential interaction (multiplicative effect) between smoking and inactive TB in the development of airflow limitation was identified, with marginal significance ( P = 0.054).

Statistical significance between MRS and endometriosis in the combined model was only observed in the CIR ( p = 0.0072) test set, yet marginal significance was also seen in the UCSF ( p = 0.0541) and IMB ( p = 0.0697) test sets.

Only SNP 9508994 (C/T) in the mother genome was found to interact with SNP 20209376 with marginal significance (p-value = 0.0547).

In addition, although isolated effects of the SNP TNF -857C > T were not observed, the combination of both variants of the TNF gene resulted in marginal significance ( P = 0.0547) in terms of the protection against the disease.

Postoperative tibial end-of-stem pain was reported in 9.8% of the non-screw group, while none (0%) in the screw group, reflecting marginal significance ( P = 0.0548).

001) and specific adversities including emotional abuse (B = 0.244, p < 0.001), emotional neglect (B = 0.319, p < 0.001), physical neglect (B = 0.294, p < 0.001) and with physical abuse showing marginal significance (B = 0.165, p = 0.055).

A lower risk was observed in patients on treatment for thyroid pathology with marginal significance ( p = 0.055).

Several hematological ratios demonstrated marginal significance: MLR ( p = 0.055), MHR ( p = 0.027), PHR ( p = 0.039), and SII, SIRI, and NHR approached statistical significance.

PD-L1 exhibited marginal significance among distinct subtypes (Kruskal-Wallis, p=0.055; figure 1A ) and was still a predictor for PFS (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.00, p=0.005) when adjusting for PTCL subtypes in the multivariate Cox regression algorithm ( figure 1C and online supplemental figure S1B ), indicating the strong and relatively independent predictive capability of PD-L1.

In HTRA1 , rs11200638 (G>A), showed marginal significance with DR (P = 0.055) while rs10490924 in LOC387715 gave a P = 0.07.

Furthermore, we also acknowledge that the marginal significance of positive EVs in the negative event writing task for both the experimental and active control groups ( p = .055) may seem counterintuitive.

In the multivariate ternary logistic regression, we found that mean training pace (AOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.04, p = 0.007) and PSQI (AOR = 2.27, 95% CI: 1.27 to 4.06, p = 0.005) were independent predictive factors for half-marathon performance, while monthly running distance shows marginal significance (AOR = 0.997, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.00, p = 0.055) (Supplementary Table 1 ).

The difference in CatS level between stable plague and unstable plague group reached marginal significance ( P = 0.055). 3.3.

While the MD for the right MLF model was not significant on sGC, it did show a marginal significance ( p = 0.055).

Pathological characteristics (path) Marginal significance ( P = 0.055) was observed in Path, indicating a higher prevalence of certain pathological categories in surgery cases.

Furthermore, postoperative chemotherapy didn’t improve survival outcomes in patients with RD<1/2MI, while it seemed to bring additional benefit for patients with RD≥1/2MI in terms of PFS with marginal significance ( P = 0.055).

Motifs from the Type 1 network show marginal significance for negative WMS values (one-sided z-test, p-value = 0.055), whereas motifs from the random network have significantly positive WMS values (p-value 4.5 × 10 -6 ).

A comparison of the pairwise expression levels between miR-155-5p and mRNA BRCA1 within WBCs for each patient and carrier revealed a significant negative correlation ( p = 0.0001 and p = 0.034) ( Figure 7 A,B) for patients with breast and ovarian cancer, respectively, with marginal significance ( p = 0.055) for the carriers ( Figure 7 C), which was not the case for controls.

The marginal significance zone was defined as p -values between 0.05 and 0.1, indicating nominal trends. hsa-miR-23a-3p exhibited a trend for upregulation ( p = 0.055), while hsa-miR-17-3p tended to be higher in the Control group.

1-AP also had a negative link (β = −37) with marginal significance ( P = 0.055).