“marginal significance”

After eliminating associations with a P‐HEIDI value less than 0.01, a total of 4,880 CpG sites around 285 distinct genes met the criteria for marginal significance ( p < 0.05), as shown in Table S3 .

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.

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).

In the multivariate analysis, predictors that showed at least marginal significance ( P < .05) were fed into a logistic regression model to generate the nomogram.

Both for behavioral and ERP data, main and interaction effects that reached statistical or marginal significance levels ( p < 0.05 or p < 0.08, respectively) in comparisons of interest are reported.

Opposite to P‐tau, T‐tau was negatively associated with Aβ42 levels with a marginal significance ( p = 0.05) only in the older cohort.

However, we did observe that there was a difference in pupil diameter for “Disgust‐Medium” sounds that reached marginal significance ( M MISO = 0.35 mm, M NON‐MISO = 0.23 mm; t‐ ratio(187) = −1.99, p = 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.47) at this same time point.

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).

It also chose peripheral vascular disease for univariate logistic analysis as it had marginal significance (P=0.050).

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).

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

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

Differences in Moral Decision‐Making Across Age and Conditions Chi‐square tests showed that adolescents had no preference in individual condition ( χ 2 (1) = 0.76, p = 0.383) and tended to choose “action” in the group condition over “no action” with marginal significance ( χ 2 (1) = 3.86, p = 0.050, Table 4 ).

Both of them showed marginal significance ( p = 0.05), which may be related to the fluency state being a higher psychological state of competitive sports psychology, and it may also be related to the level of athletes’ trait mindfulness and the time effect of mindfulness training.

After the removal of associations with P-HEIDI <0.01, a total of 247 CpG sites near 115 unique genes passed the marginal significance (P < 0.05) ( Table S2 ).

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).

The difference in trifecta achievement rates between the two groups showed marginal significance (p = 0.05).

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

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 ).

Statistical significance and marginal significance were considered at P < 0.05 and 0.05 ≤ P < 0.10.

Age also reached a marginal significance in the comparison between participants declaring recent (last year) group sex (35.9 ± 7.6) and those who did not so (40.1 ± 10.9, p = 0.05).

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).

We found 176 protein-SMF pairings with 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).

Pairwise comparisons only reached marginal significance between AD and FTD ( p = 0.050 and p = 0.082, respectively).