“marginal significance”

PD-L1 positivity in Sq (44%) and La (67%) were larger than in Ad (21%), with a marginal significance (p = 0.064).

Nevertheless, marginal significance (p = 0.0641) was observed for FDiv between the 1990s and 2010s for locomotion function ( Fig 3C ).

1B ; Student’s t-test, p = 0.0642, marginal significance).

Specifically, in the poorly performing model GLS-2 (“AIC” = 67), Chlorophyll during the “June–July” and “July–August” periods showed marginal significance ( p = 0.0642 and p = 0.0610, respectively) ( Table S2 ).

Only haplotype A - G - C of rs12461727, rs73038469, and rs4803406 in LD block B2 in CYP2A7P1 and CYP2B7P1 showed a dose-response pattern and had a p value near a marginal significance level (raw p = 0.0644).

This difference reached marginal significance ( P = 0.0646).

The Fisher exact test indicted a significant difference between the non-polluted sites and P2 ( P < 0.001) and marginal significance for the non-polluted sites and P1 ( P = 0.0646).

During sessions 1–4 group C10 shows a slight improvement of approximately 2° reduction in the mean error, with marginal significance (Tukey’s HSD test, p = 0.0647).

Although these results were not statistically significant due to insufficient patient numbers, QT interval prolongation risk was associated with rosuvastatin use with marginal significance ( p = 0.0647).

As predicted in Hypothesis 3, feminist identification was associated with more perceived discrimination, albeit only with marginal significance ( b = 0.08, SE = 0.04, p = .065).

Global mean network strength during rest showed only marginal significance for positive connectivity between TBI (M = 2,139.24, SD = 332.06) and HCs (M = 1,944.74, SD = 251.40) [( t ) = −1.835, Cohen’s d = 0.66, p = 0.065] and for negative connectivity between TBI (M = 1,183.84, SD = 258.53) and HCs (M = 1,036.80, SD = 167.53) [( t ) = −1.979, Cohen’s d = 0.68, p = 0.057], see Figure 2 .

12 , 14 , 15 However, although with marginal significance ( p = 0.065), patients with a normal Pv–aCO 2 cleared their blood lactate over 24 hours as shown by others. 16 , 27 Interestingly, the lactate clearance was accompanied by a lower ScvO 2 during the first 6 hours which together may indicate a higher blood flow and less hypoperfusion in several patients.

Marginal significance was found for the association between time to shivering and fat mass index (r=0.400; p = 0.065).

Comparable values for TMTV, baseline IPI components, IPI category, and COO were observed between groups with high and low intratumoral CD4 + cell burden, except for a lower prevalence of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score ≥2 with marginal significance (14.5% vs. 27.4%, P =0.065) in those with low intratumoral CD4 + cells.

A lower Qmax was observed in the severe symptom group with marginal significance (p=0.065).

However, there is a negative interaction between EE and GAM with marginal significance at 10% level (β = −0.140, p = 0.065).

Statistical analysis revealed significant group differences in sensitivity ( p = .027) and specificity ( p = .038), with marginal significance observed for the F1 score ( p = .065) and accuracy ( p = .109).

The increase in PC risk associated with DNMT3A reached marginal significance when compared to the GnomAD cohort ( p = 0.0650, OR = 3.6707, 95% CI: 0.7619–15.4792).

The presence of chromosome 7 polysomy tended (with marginal significance [ P = 0.065]) to be correlated with EGFR overexpression.

In fact, a one-way RM ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction revealed a significant difference for AI within prism distortions (F (1.86, 20.45) = 5.091, p = 0.018; η 2 p = 0.316; 1-β = 0.74, n = 14 to achieve 1-β = 0.8; post hoc NK test: 0° vs 15°, p = 0.004, and 5° vs 15°, p = 0.024) and only a marginal significance for MT within prism distorsions (F (2.19, 24.06) = 2.987, p = 0.065; η 2 p = 0.214; 1-β = 0.55, n = 19 to achieve 1-β = 0.8, post hoc NK test: 0° vs 15°, p = 0.05).

Grouping studies by study design and source of controls revealed only marginal significance for the comparison of alleles ε4 with ε3 in hospital-based studies (OR =1.33, 95% CI =0.98–1.79, P =0.065, I 2 =30.2%).

For the fecundity models, adding evolutionary environment significantly improved model fit (χ2 = 8.95, df = 2, p = 0.011), with parent generation showing marginal significance (χ2 = 3.42, df = 1, p = 0.065; Supplementary Tables 11 and 12 ).

Relative to the control, treatment with native fucoidan and nanoparticle fucoidan resulted in reduction of tumor tissue weight, though the effect of the latter was significant ( P < 0.05) compared with marginal significance for the former ( P = 0.065) ( Figure 3 B).

Although trails A was selected for investigation a priori on the basis of its correlation with MRI volumes, it should be noted that the effect on trails A was modest and would only reach marginal significance ( p =0.065) if strict Bonferroni correction were applied against all five domain scores in our neurocognitive battery.

There is a significant difference in how the Tai-chi group and the waitlist group faired on the displacing test ( Z = −2.28; P = 0.023; r = 0.42) and marginal significance the one-hand test ( Z = −1.95; P = 0.065; r = 0.36).