“marginal significance”

2b ), Friedman’s rank test showed marginal significance in the alpha NF group ( χ 2 ( 2 ) = 5.69 , p = 0.058 ) .

The difference between group A and group B approached marginal significance (p=0.058, unadjusted).

There were no statistically significant differences between the pharmacies where syringes were successfully purchased and those where the purchase attempt was unsuccessful; however, female mystery shoppers were more likely to have a successful purchase outcome than male shoppers, with marginal significance (p = 0.058).

The moderating effect was reduced to marginal significance ( p = .058) when only adjusting for daily time spent interacting with the partner (see Supplemental Tables S7–S12 ).

The comparison between control and LibidoMax groups showed a marginal significance ( P = 0.058) for the left testis and strong significance ( P < 0.0001) for the right testis.

Chi-square test revealed marginal significance, χ 2 = 5.692, df = 2, p = 0.058, Cramer's V = 0.287.

Although the TLR pathway had a marginal significance ( p = 0.058), it was more significant than the NLR pathway ( p = 0.91), while the RLR pathway showed the highest significance ( p = 0.024) of all the PRRs expressed in response to SAV-3 infection in TO-cells.

Progesterone receptor status was also associated with OS ( P =0.0107, Figure 2D ), whereas estrogen receptor status conferred an OS benefit with marginal significance ( P =0.0580, Figure 2B ).

76.9%), with the difference in warning signs reaching marginal significance ( P = 0.058).

Reproductive effects of POPs Compared with successful females, females losing their eggs at Bjørnøya in 2009 had higher plasma concentrations of ∑OC, with marginal significance (Mean ± SE: 2696±280 vs . 1984 ± 328 ng/g, wt. weight; Logistic regression: χ 2 1, 39 = 3.60, P = 0.058; estimate successful = -0.98± 0.54 SE), but not ∑BDE ( P = 0.62).

Results The mGluR5 density increased with marginal significance (+16%; P = 0.058) in the prefrontal cortex of FXS patients or carriers compared with matched healthy controls.

Besides, the unaffected arm exhibited significantly more preservation synergies (synergies resembling healthy patterns) than the affected arm in moderate (Placing 30 cm: Z(11) = -2.144, corrected p = 0.031, Rosenthal’s r = -0.646) and high complexity tasks (Z(11) = -2.558, corrected p = 0.028, Rosenthal’s r = -0.771), and fewer mutation synergies (synergies deviating from healthy patterns) with marginal significance (Placing 30 cm: Z(11) = -1.992, corrected p = 0.058, Rosenthal’s r = -0.600; Drinking: Z(11) = -2.070, corrected p = 0.058, Rosenthal’s r = -0.624).

However, the main effects of EFB status and yard individually show only marginal significance (EFB: F = 2.438, P = 0.058; Yard: F = 1.127, P = 0.302), suggesting that while they may contribute to the model, their impact is not as pronounced as the virus species and its interactions.

The DFS also favored NCT arms in these patients with HR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.30 to 1.02) with marginal significance (p=0.058).

Compared with the other antihypertensive agents after propensity score matching, CCB was associated with increased cancer risk (HR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.09; p = 0.017), whereas marginal significance was shown in association between ARB and a lower cancer risk (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.00; p = 0.058). β-Blocker, TD, and ACEI showed no significant association with cancer risk ( p > 0.05).

The two‐way interaction approached marginal significance in ANOVA ( p = 0.058).

In Arms B and C, in which the practitioners were trained in therapy, this value was lower with marginal significance (p = .058).

Yet, there was marginal significance for a higher level (mean ±SD) of continuously measured depressive symptoms in patients with compared to those without recurrent VTE (4.41±2.27 vs. 3.24±3.05, p = 0.058).

In addition, the hazard of death for mice treated with the combination is 45.5% of the hazard for mice treated with CCR4‐IL2 IT with a marginal significance ( P = 0.058).

Besides, a similar effect was also noted among different HR/ERBB2 subgroups ( P = 0.012) ( Figure 2A ), while marginal significance was achieved between patients with larger and smaller tumors ( P = 0.0581) ( Figure 2B ).

The effect of during-outbreak-perceived risk remained significant in model 3 (AOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.32; P = .0183), whereas the effect of altruistic acceptance of risk was slightly attenuated and of only marginal significance ( P = .0583). 4.

Despite the relatively small sample size of the chemotherapy-benefit validation cohort (56 patients with 13 recurrent events), the 10-gene chemotherapy-benefit signature also achieved marginal significance (log rank p value = 0.0583), indicating a promising trend that distinguishes 5-FU-based ACT-beneficial and non-beneficial groups in terms of survival outcomes.

In the subgroup treated with AC regimen, grades of ALDH1+ tumour cells increased after PST with a marginal significance ( P =0.059) ( Figures 2C–F ).

In contrast, Influenza A was strongly associated with headache (OR = 3.59, 95% CI: 1.44–10.24, p = 0.009), anorexia (OR = 4.76, 95% CI: 2.03–11.09, p < 0.001), and showed a marginal significance (OR = 1.57, CI: 0.98–2.50, p = 0.059) with fever, whereas cough showed a negative association (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11–0.77, p = 0.010).

This association was markedly stronger in the elevated BP group: the risk for Q4 participants increased threefold (OR = 3.21, 95% CI: 2.26–4.61, P < 0.001), and Q3 showed substantial risk (OR = 2.43), while Q2 showed marginal significance ( P = 0.059).