“marginal significance”

After the removal of associations with P-HEIDI <0.01, a total of 305 CpG sites near 132 unique genes passed the marginal significance ( p < 0.05) ( Supplementary Table S2 ).

The first three parameters were significantly related to prognosis (p = 0.043, p = 0.033, and p = 0.002, respectively), while TRG displayed marginal significance (p = 0.050).

However, Faith’s PD was higher in the larger space, showing marginal significance (8.6 ± 2.5 vs. 11.6 ± 4.0, p = 0.05, Figure 2 D).

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.

The correlation of the auxiliary variables with the solid phase gives similar results; the only correlation that we found with marginal significance ( p = 0.05) was in the case of insemination ( r = 0.47).

Additionally, the two-way interaction between the Trial type and TW showed a marginal significance ( F = 2.01, P = 0.050).

In the case of Interpersonal Skills, there was a marginal significance when equal variances were assumed [ t (199) = 1.972, p = 0.050], with a mean difference of 0.840 (95% CI: 0.000–1.680).

12.2 ± 6.7 points, p = 0.04), and higher scores of anxiety symptoms with a marginal significance level (8.5 ± 4.4 vs. 6.2 ± 3.6 points, p = 0.05), according to HADS ( Table 1 ).

However, marginal significance ( P =0.05–0.10) was observed starting at the class level.

In the HBOT group, PPT increased in 70.8 ± 90.6 kPa, compared to increase of 20.1 ± 85.7 kPa in the MED group, group-by-time interaction demonstrated marginal significance with medium effect size (d = 0.57, p = 0.05).

Of the four pairwise joint models including six unique genes, all the associations were attenuated but retained marginal significance (P<0.05).

Using rs9939224 as a covariate, we found that 13 of the 23 SNPs, in which minor alleles were negatively associated with the SCORE2‐OP‐ Lipid (β<0), were independent of rs9939224 (conditional P <0.05, considered marginal significance).

The rater-approved ChatGPT REC ratio showed significant differences ( p < 0.05) across the three cancer types, and the NCCN-aligned ChatGPT REC ratio also exhibited marginal significance ( p = 0.050).

However, NK cells consistently showed marginal significance (defined as nominal p < 0.05) for heritability enrichment in cell-type-specific open chromatin regions across two independent GWAS and in the cell-type-specific expression analysis where NK cells were compared with T cell subsets using a curated list of genome-wide significant loci for AS.

The number of RBPMS+ cells was lower in the high-pressure group compared to the control group with marginal significance (p = 0.050), whereas the number of RBPMS+ showed no significant differences in the low-pressure group compared with the control group (p = 0.500) (Fig. 1 D).

Attitude Towards Bullying The analysis of pro-bullying attitudes among various bullying roles demonstrated marginal significance ( F (3, 161) = 2.6, p = .05).

Direct association of FOXP3 + TILs with VSA t2 was noted (marginal significance p = 0.05; Fig. 4 e).

Of the five pairwise joint models including eight unique genes, all the associations were attenuated below the TWAS significance level, but retained marginal significance (p < 0.05).

Notably, we discerned three protein-MS pairs reaching marginal significance levels from the deCODE (P < 0.05 for two-sample MR analysis).

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

The CD25 MFI on the Teff cells decreased slightly with marginal significance in the antibody group ( p < 0.05) and increased more than fourfold in the complex group ( p < 0.0001) compared to the control group (Fig. 4 d).

However, there were higher variations in host and viral sequence contamination detected in FL samples, with marginal significance ( p = 0.05, Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance).

Male hamsters exhibited a weaker positive linear association that reached marginal significance (p < 0.05).

A statistically marginal significance of BMI was shown (being obese increased the odds of suicidal ideation about three times, OR = 2.93 [1.01–8.5], p < 0.05).

Several other associations reached marginal significance ( p > 0.05, p < 0.10).