“marginal significance”

Interestingly, we observed that rs4979223 ( P = 0.007), rs4978536 ( P = 0.063, with marginal significance), rs2233914 ( P = 0.039), rs10817464 ( P = 0.006) and rs10759637 ( P = 0.006) showed significantly divergent genotypic distribution between groups with mild or severe thrombocytopenia, some of which remained statistically significant after multiple test correction.

Impact of RT dose on survival outcomes As for disease-free survival (DFS), multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative CA 19-9 value was the only factor significantly associated with DFS ( p = 0.040, Supplementary Table 1 ), whereas pathologic N stage showed marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

However, there was no significant difference in the age group of < 65 years (1.6%, P -value = .500), and the age group of ≥75 years showed a marginal significance (1.6%, P -value = .063), indicating a possible but not conclusive association.

CD8-C1 also exhibited a reduction with marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

There was also an association in the homozygous CC women’s group, but with marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

Compared with HRW group, the BW of rats in HI group was lower with a marginal significance (p = 0.063) during the four weeks (Fig. 1 B).

Conversely, maltreatment's effect on internalizing problems reached only marginal significance ( b = 0.424, p = .063), with associations primarily reflected in correlated random intercepts ( b = 0.783, p = .025), suggesting stable trait differences rather than causal processes.

In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference between the rapid PAP and black rice extract staining methods ( p =0.974), and marginal significance was found for the difference between black rice extract and SpermBlue ( p =0.063).

No significant difference of CTLA-4 -138 genotypic distribution between subject groups was identified ( P =0.119), while marginal significance was observed in the CTLA-4 -318 allelic distribution ( P= 0.063).

Although some correlations approached marginal significance (e.g., CHEQ Grip Efficiency and community participation frequency, ρ = − 0.23, p = 0.063; CHEQ Feeling Bothered and community participation frequency, ρ = − 0.21, p = 0.097), none reached the conventional threshold for statistical significance ( p ≤ 0.05).

Moderating effects of genetic variants on stage of illness development for gene expression and protein levels As indicated in Table 2 , for log mRNA expression levels, there was marginal significance of an interaction between the BDNF genotype and illness development stage after adjustments ( p = 0.063).

Finally, when Factor 2 of perfectionism, or maladaptive perfectionism, is introduced into the model, its explanatory power increases, reaching 29.5% but maintaining a marginal significance level ( p = 0.063).

At the same time, the SNV rate of ASXL1 varied among three CPS groups with marginal significance, with the PD-L1-M group not exhibiting SNV of ASXL1 (p=0.063) ( Figure 6B ).

Also, PD-L1 expression tended to correlate with improved survival, but multivariate analysis showed marginal significance (HR = 0.684, 95% CI [0.4581.021], P =0.063, Table 2 ).

There were significant differences in the levels of the virus RNA between titrated virus at 10 -1 TCID 50 and at 10 -2 TCID 50 ( P = 0.001), between titrated virus at 10 -3 TCID 50 and at 10 -4 TCID 50 ( P = 0.046), between titrated virus at 10 -4 TCID 50 and at 10 -5 TCID 50 ( P = 0.014) except those between titrated virus at 10 -2 TCID 50 and at 10 -3 TCID 50 which showed a marginal significance ( P = 0.063).

In the stroke cohort, the interaction patterns were similar, with statistical significance achieved in Models 1 and 3 (Model 1 p=0.043; Model 3 p=0.047) and marginal significance in Model 2 (p=0.063).

The marginal significance at M3 ( p = 0.063), though not strong, may indicate a trend worthy of further investigation and could have clinical implications for the management of transplant patients concerning SARS-CoV-2 infection.

5.8, p = 0.03) and marginal significance for the Anhui strain (21.6 vs. 8.3, p = 0.063).

The overall CVAE in a group of female patients with breast cancer who had exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors was slightly higher than for those treated with anthracyclines, with marginal significance (35.9 versus 28.5 per 100 person‐years; P =0.063; Table 2 ); however, there was no statistical difference between these 2 groups in the competing risk analysis (Figure 2A ).

~46–50%), but at the marginal significance ( p = 0.063) (when we consider the US recommendations of 0.80 g/kg body mass, it was, respectively, ~60% vs. ~45%, p = 0.045).

For miR-150-5p, this tendency was noted with marginal significance (27.3% vs. 13.5%; P = 0.063).

Two studies demonstrated improved response times on Go/No-Go ( Ando et al., 2013 ) or ANT tasks ( Huertas et al., 2011 [marginal significance: p < 0.063]).

Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and surgery severity showed that before surgery blood glucose may be an independent predictor of mortality with marginal significance ( P = 0.063) and likewise with postoperative blood glucose concentration ( P = 0.087).

Similarly, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) #9501 trial showed a trend toward improved OS rates, albeit with marginal significance (OS rate of 42% with adjuvant CRT, compared to 31% with RT alone, p = 0.063).

It was estimated that the disease-free survival was different according to the preoperative PNI with a marginal significance [≤48.85: 21.75 months (95% CI, 19.03−24.4) vs. >48.85: 51.88 months (95% CI, 43.10−60.66), p = 0.0633, Fig 2A ].