“marginal significance”

With a marginal significance ( p = 0.068), the application of the laser caused bleeding in the experimental group with a probability that was 4.5 times higher than the sham group.

In the CNV group, despite treatment efforts, visual acuities decreased at the final visit compared to those at the first visit, showing marginal significance (mean±SD, LogMAR, 0.32±0.13 to 0.67±0.27; p =0.068, Wilcoxon signed-rank test) ( Fig. 2B ).

In the OP group, significantly more patients had injury in multiple solid abdominal organs and the most commonly associated organ was the spleen, albeit with marginal significance ( P = 0.068).

Bilinguals with MCI (mean age: 75.49 years; SD: 8.43 years) were older than monolinguals by 3.5 years (mean age: 72.00 years; SD: 8.36) with marginal significance ( P = .068).

The crude OR was 5.33 with marginal significance (95% CI: 0.99–42.00, P=0.068).

This effect was of only marginal significance when comparing treatment to the post-treatment baseline alone ( P = 0.068), or to the average of both OFF treatment phases ( P = 0.063).

When the AIP index was analyzed as a continuous variable, per unit increase in the AIP index resulted in higher odds of extensive AAC in the univariate logistic regression model (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 0.97, 2.60), but present marginal significance ( p = 0.068).

EBRT (HR 0.212, 95% CI 0.052–0.862; p = 0.03), along with a marginal significance detected on eliminating hormonal factor (HR 0.255, 95% CI 0.062–1.04; p = 0.068) or the age factor (HR 0.145, 95% CI 0.020–1.04; p = 0.055).

There was a trend for increased antibody titers to measles at 60-days post-MMR vaccination with a marginal significance (p=0.068).

Confidence showed marginal significance (OR = 1.013, p = 0.068).

Folin–Ciocalteu TPC showed a moderate-to-large effect size (η 2 = 0.684) but marginal significance ( p = 0.068), likely influenced by limited sample sizes, while acidity, pH, and reducing sugars exhibited only small-to-moderate effects.

Clusters showed marginal significance ( p = 0.068) in the same direction, and all other comparisons were non-significant.

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

In addition, a marginal significance was found with patients drinking less than 7 drinks per week, with an OR of 4.1786 (95% CI 0.8995–19.4103, p = 0.0680).

Univariate analysis identified elevated TBil (p = 0.068, marginal significance), AFP (p = 0.027), T1HBP (p = 0.013), and TLRR2* (p = 0.015) as significant predictors of high Ki-67 expression.

In fully adjusted models, the TyG-BRI index in the ECDRAHC cohort showed marginal significance for ischemic stroke incidence (HR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.99–1.30, p = 0.069).

After adjusting for demographic characteristics (Model 2), the protective association remained robust for the upper-middle SES group (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.54–0.81, P < 0.001), while the high SES group maintained a similar magnitude of protection albeit with marginal significance (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.13–0.97, P = 0.069).

PESA and PISA values in the control group were higher than in the hospital group but only with marginal significance (p=0.069 and p=0.065, respectively).

However, the behavioral merit sensitivity was reduced to only marginal significance ( S merit : beta = –0.05, 95% CI [–0.10, 0.00], t (21) = −1.92, p = 0.069).

Food handler behaviour regarding maintaining cooked food at a high temperature before serving showed marginal significance (67.5%; P = .069 ), suggesting a partial understanding of this precautionary measure.

p‐Tau 217 levels measured by the remaining assay platforms showed similar trends across BMI groups, but reached only marginal significance: Fujirebio (0.20 [SD = 0.26], 0.17 [SD = 0.27], 0.10 [SD = 0.08]; p = 0.069), Alzpath (0.40 [SD = 0.27], 0.38 [SD = 0.29], 0.30 [SD = 0.17]; p = 0.103), and Janssen (0.06 [SD = 0.04], 0.05 [SD = 0.04], 0.04 [SD = 0.03]; p = 0.083).

The inclusion of H B (block 3) did not show significant contribution to the model in all these domains, although marginal significance was found in memory ( β = 0.10, ∆ R 2 = 0.011, p = 0.069).

Its negative direct effect on offensive VEI (we use β for SDM coefficients throughout) survives spatial adjustment in every bivariate specification ( Table 1 ) and is the only predictor that retains significance in Model 6 (β = −0.416, P = 0.046), though the total effect drops to marginal significance ( P = 0.069; Table 2 ).

However, strong trend for decreased SPARC expression in large tumors (stage T3) compared to stages T1 and T2 was observed and reached marginal significance (p=0.0696, Kruskal-Wallis test) suggesting inhibitory role of SPARC in tumor growth ( Supplementary Figure 1 ).

Additionally, TFS showed a relatively high GDW, consistent with its marginal significance ( p = 0.07) in the regression model.