“marginal significance”

The annual number of live births also showed a positive correlation with the bundle implementation index score for the obstetrical hemorrhage safety bundle, with a marginal significance (correlation coefficient = 0.32; 95% CI = −0.027−0.590; p = 0.0664).

The means of GC and GCDC were higher in BA than in neonatal jaundice infants with marginal significance (GC: 2.71±2.26 μmol/L vs 1.31±1.11 μmol/L, p = 0.0664; GCDC: 0.94±0.55 μmol/L vs 0.63±0.54 μmol/L, p = 0.0967).

In the first aggregated region spanning the area from Cl2 until V, linear mixed models revealed a main effect of COMP, which however shows up with a marginal significance [ χ ( 1 ) 2 = 3 . 365 , p = 0.0666].

By percentage comparison, we identified a larger percentage of CD63/81+ sEVs in enucleated AH with marginal significance (22.5 ± 11.3%, enucleated versus 7.10 ± 1.41%, salvaged, P = 0.0667; see Fig. 4 E).

The interaction between social mindfulness and credibility approached marginal significance (Wald χ 2(1) = 3.359, p = 0.067).

Being 51 to 65 years was negatively related to TMPA (-42.8 ± 13.6, p = 0.004) and had marginal significance for TVPA (-5.3 ± 2.8, p = 0.067), but no significant association was found for either BMPA or BVPA.

After controlling for the effects of Sex on Equity Sensitivity, the correlation between Grip Strength and Equity Sensitivity fell to marginal significance (partial r [121] = −.17, p = .067), and after controlling for the effects of Sex on General Observed Egalitarianism, the correlation between Grip Strength and General Observed Egalitarianism became non-significant (partial r [120] = −.09, p = .333).

Further in-depth analysis revealed that in the HOMA-IR ≥1.73 group, the rate of change in lactate levels was positively correlated with the rate of change in HOMA-IR, FBG and FPI levels; in the FBG ≥6.1 mM group, the FPI levels dropped significantly and FBG levels reduced with a marginal significance ( p = 0.067).

Furthermore, the interaction of stimulus, task, and group reached significance for the frontal area ( F 1, 50 = 5.001, P = 0.030, η 2 = 0.091) and central area ( F 1, 50 = 4.537, P = 0.038, η 2 = 0.083), and marginal significance for the occipital area ( F 1, 50 = 3.515, P = 0.067, η 2 = 0.066).

A similar tendency was identified in stage IIIA patients with marginal significance (P = 0.067), exhibiting a lack of homogeneity.

Although the state × condition interaction reached only marginal significance ( F (1, 71) = 3.46, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.046), post-hoc comparisons revealed a consistent pattern: fair proposals induced significantly higher interbrain global efficiency than unfair proposals in both state 1 ( t = 3.856, p FDR = 3.34 × 10 -4 , Cohen’s d = 0.454, 95% CI = [0.005, 0.014]) and state 2 ( t = 2.478, p FDR = 0.016, Cohen’s d = 0.292, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.009]).

Among rural students, learning motivation was significantly higher in the experimental group (M = 5.35) than in the control group (M = 4.23; t = 4.06, p < 0.001), whereas among urban students the corresponding difference was smaller and reached only marginal significance (M = 5.07 vs. 4.53; t = 1.85, p = 0.067).

The main effect of parafoveal word frequency was not significant on all fixation times and skipping probability (fixation times:| t |s < 1.84, p s > 0.05; skipping probability: z = −1.38, p = 0.167), but there was a marginal significance on gaze time ( t = 1.83, p = 0.067), indicating shorter processing time when the parafoveal word was of high frequency compared to low frequency.

Partial correlations for sustained post-error slowing also demonstrated more negative correlations between post-error slowing and baseline RT (controlling for ER; M = −0.471, SD = 0.589) than between post-error slowing and ER (controlling for baseline RT; M = 0.129, SD = 0.756) although only achieving marginal significance ( t (16) = 1.97, p = 0.067; see Figure 4 ).

In addition, changes in average rrn copy number were positively correlated with those of C-decomposing gene abundances at marginal significance ( r = 0.55, P = 0.067, Fig.

Two differences from the AFDP results include that the AHB marriage effects (1) first reached nonsignificance at the second-to-last age bin of 31–34 (rather than at the last age bin in AFDP) and (2) appeared to reverse direction at the last age bin of 35–39 such that becoming married predicted increased problem drinking at these ages (albeit with only “marginal significance” of p = .067).

The difference between Group A and Group B approached marginal significance (M difference = − 0.472, p = .067), while no significant difference was observed between Group A and Group C (M difference = − 0.335, p = .297).

The withdrawal rates were slightly higher in the group A with marginal significance (14.3% in group A vs. 5.6% in group B; p = 0.067).

The results indicate that for the left eye AOI the difference between the two groups was not significant, although marginal significance was observed, F (1,35) = 3.56, p = .067.

7.5%) with a marginal significance (p = 0.067) in a t-test.

In multivariate analysis, only older age (≥65 years) and the presence of ENE were independent prognostic factors for DSS ( p = .002 and p < .001, respectively), and salivary MMP‐1 showed marginal significance for predicting DSS ( p = .067, 95% CI: 0.974–2.094; Table S1 ). 4.

A randomized controlled trial in 96 patients showed that lymphoblastoid IFN 5 MU in combination with thymosin α-1 1.6 mg 3 times weekly for 24 weeks increased HBeAg loss 1 year after the end of treatment with marginal significance in comparison with IFN monotherapy (45.8% vs. 28%; P = 0.067) [ 57 ].

After adjusting for multiple variables ( Table 2 ), the ORs of the 1 st quintile was also larger than the OR of the 5 th quintile with marginal significance ( P = 0.067).

Moreover, A549LC cells acquired greater tumorigenic activity than A549 cells in vivo because the implanted A549LC cells doubled the growth of the implanted parental A549 cells, 0.21 ± 0.04 g versus 0.1 ± 0.03 g with marginal significance ( P value = 0.0678, n = 7, Additional file 1 : Figure S1).

Force is also statistically significant ( p -value = 0.027), while feed rate shows marginal significance ( p -value = 0.068).