“marginal significance”

Moderating effects of genetic variants on stage of illness development for gene expression and protein levels As indicated in Table 2 , for log mRNA expression levels, there was marginal significance of an interaction between the BDNF genotype and illness development stage after adjustments ( p = 0.063).

~46–50%), but at the marginal significance ( p = 0.063) (when we consider the US recommendations of 0.80 g/kg body mass, it was, respectively, ~60% vs. ~45%, p = 0.045).

Model 3, with a classification accuracy of 0.63, reached marginal significance, t (48) = 1.91, p = 0.063, Cohen’s d = 0.27, however, 1000 permutation p = 0.03 and an AUC of 0.59, indicating that the accuracy was significantly higher than the random level.

There were significant differences in the levels of the virus RNA between titrated virus at 10 -1 TCID 50 and at 10 -2 TCID 50 ( P = 0.001), between titrated virus at 10 -3 TCID 50 and at 10 -4 TCID 50 ( P = 0.046), between titrated virus at 10 -4 TCID 50 and at 10 -5 TCID 50 ( P = 0.014) except those between titrated virus at 10 -2 TCID 50 and at 10 -3 TCID 50 which showed a marginal significance ( P = 0.063).

Conversely, maltreatment's effect on internalizing problems reached only marginal significance ( b = 0.424, p = .063), with associations primarily reflected in correlated random intercepts ( b = 0.783, p = .025), suggesting stable trait differences rather than causal processes.

Finally, when Factor 2 of perfectionism, or maladaptive perfectionism, is introduced into the model, its explanatory power increases, reaching 29.5% but maintaining a marginal significance level ( p = 0.063).

However, there was no significant difference in the age group of < 65 years (1.6%, P -value = .500), and the age group of ≥75 years showed a marginal significance (1.6%, P -value = .063), indicating a possible but not conclusive association.

Combination therapy showed a 10% decrease in liver fat, the greatest reduction among the groups, albeit with marginal significance for the three-group difference ( p = 0.063) (Table 2 ).

The marginal significance at M3 ( p = 0.063), though not strong, may indicate a trend worthy of further investigation and could have clinical implications for the management of transplant patients concerning SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CD8-C1 also exhibited a reduction with marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

The overall CVAE in a group of female patients with breast cancer who had exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors was slightly higher than for those treated with anthracyclines, with marginal significance (35.9 versus 28.5 per 100 person‐years; P =0.063; Table 2 ); however, there was no statistical difference between these 2 groups in the competing risk analysis (Figure 2A ).

Chronic pain was negatively associated with IC scores, achieving statistical significance in the Medium-stable Group ( Coe =-0.032, P <0.001) and marginal significance in the Low-decreased Group ( Coe =-0.022 P =0.063), though no significant association was found in the High-increased Group ( Coe =-0.003, P =0.774).

There was also an association in the homozygous CC women’s group, but with marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

CNLs and TNLs We did not find a significant relationship between CMI and TNL counts ( p = .695, Figure 5d , MS region = 14.072, MS error = 86.559, F = 0.1626; Degrees of freedom from Satterthwaite's method: df region = 1, df error = 10.215), and only a marginal significance with CNL counts (Figure 5c ; p = .0634, MS region = 651.19, MS error = 150.22, F = 4.3349; Degrees of freedom from Satterthwaite's method: df region = 1, df error = 10.22).

The polymorphism rs11977526 had marginal significance ( p =0.064) in allelic frequency.

Strong exons with DS CTCF peaks had a larger proportion of cases with HNRNPL binding US from CLIP than weak exons, with marginal significance (9 of 381 vs. 2 of 381; Fisher's exact test P-value = 0.064,).

In subgroup analysis consisting only of T2–T3 disease, the use of HDR-ISBT showed marginal significance for favorable 5-year LCR (88.9% vs 46.9%, P = 0.064).

For example, strong leaf antioxidant capacity was observed in PR-grafted plants although the leaf ABA content was decreased by heat stress with marginal significance ( P = 0.064), and root FRAP was the lowest in MA-grafted plants despite their high root ABA contents under heat stress conditions ( Figures 3E–H , 5A–D ).

Treatment with Nezavist (20 mg/kg/dose) reduced the amount of alcohol ingested by drinking the 20% solution (2.16‐g/kg body weight, marginal significance, p = 0.064), and there was an increase in the quantity of alcohol consumed by drinking the 10% solution (also 2.16‐g/kg body weight for the 10% solution, p = 0.151 compared with vehicle‐treated animals) (Figure 1E ).

An MR study using a large dataset demonstrated that HbA1c indicated marginal significance ( p = 0.064); however, combined with the UKBB and FinnGen project dataset, the HbA1c indicated a possible causal association (OR: 1.28 95% CI, 1.01–1.61) [ 63 ].

These include delayed surgical intervention,[ 26 , 27 ] advanced age, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, cognitive function, function or mobility before hip fracture, and number of pre-existing medical conditions.[ 11 , 13 , 28 ] Although we could not find a statistical significance between two groups, there was a marginal significance in one-year mortality between SCH group and control group in this study ( P =0.064).

Results Outcomes of independent sample t -tests and χ 2 -tests revealed there were no significant differences at T0 between ACT and both control conditions on all included potential moderator/predictor variables, although the difference between ACT and WL in the percentage of people working full/part-time reached marginal significance, with ACT participants working full/part-time more often than WL participants [χ 2 (1) = 3.439, p = 0.064].

While pairwise comparisons in the sigma band only reached marginal significance, very large effect sizes suggested higher sigma power during the acclimation night compared to the other conditions (acclimation vs baseline: p =0.064, d = 1.23; acclimation vs 0–100%: p =0.069, d = 1.23; acclimation vs 0–600%: p =0.100, d = 1.14).

In multivariate models, β-CTN/m-CK index < 0.5 (HR 2.230, 95% CI 1.106–4.500; p = 0.025) was the independent predictor of shorter RFS, and TSR ≥ 13% showed marginal significance for CSS (HR 2.536, 95% CI 0.947–6.790; p = 0.064).

The interaction between location and environmental familiarity reached marginal significance ( F = 3.42, p = 0.064).