“marginal significance”

Statistically significant differences are found in two of the five factors: Influence of the Performance Evaluation ( p = 0.030; d = −0.389) and Mental Skills ( p = 0.030; d = −0.788); and there is a marginal significance in Stress Control ( p = 0.083; d = −0.234).

The incidence of CM was higher among Jewish than Arab women in the age group of 25–29 years, although this difference only reached marginal significance (10 vs. 4 per 10,000, p = 0.083, one-sided 0.054).

miR-122 expression showed marginal significance for predicting early IHR (HR 2.02 [95% CI 0.91–4.47], p = 0.083 by the Cox proportional hazard model).

The diameter of stent-graft and discontinuation of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet treatment was found to risk factor with marginal significance in univariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.194; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.031–1.239; P = 0.083 and HR, 7.778; 95% CI, 0.795–76.088; P = 0.090).

Furthermore, we adopted the model to explore the association of STING signaling with immunotherapy benefit and found that an improved immune response in the Mariathasan2018_PD-L1, Kim2018_PD-1, Gide2019_combined, Jung2019_PD-1/L1, and Gide2019_PD-1 datasets (logistic regression model, P < 0.05) and marginal significance in Riaz2017_progPD-1 ( P = 0.083) ( Figure 1A ).

MATH score decreased with marginal significance after CRT (average: 37.06 vs. 32.90, paired Wilcoxon signed rank test p = 0.083).

Additionally, the interaction effect reached marginal significance, F (3,44) = 2.37, p = .083, and η 2 = .03.

Analysis of simple effects revealed a significant difference between morphine and saline groups when the solution concentration was 2.5% [ F (1, 97) = 6.13, P < 0.05], as well as a marginal significance between Morphine-4% and Saline-4% groups [ F (1, 97) = 3.07, P = 0.083].

A marginal significance was observed between adequate appendicular SMI and reduced risk of MAFLD (OR[95%CI]: 0.61 [0.36~1.03], P = 0.083).

There was no significant difference between SSRTs for stimuli which appeared after neutral pictures ( M = .26, SD = .06) and SSRTs for stimuli which appeared after either negative pictures or no pictures ( p > .05), although a marginal significance was found for the difference between SSRTs for stimuli which appeared after neutral pictures and negative pictures ( p = .083, see Fig 5 ).

The marginal significance of the interaction term (F = 1.825; p = 0.083) suggests that there is only weak evidence that these methods differ in their preservation ability over time.

The HLA-OWMM group was younger than the control group, with marginal significance (28 years [IQR, 25–34 years] vs. 35 years [IQR, 26–47 years]; P=0.083).

In addition, compared to the overall correlation across the 104 participants, the correlation indeed appeared stronger when only the cost-first-dominated participants were included, which reached marginal significance when the number of participants included was between 54 and 60 (cluster-based permutation test, p = .083) or between 65 and 72 ( p = .081).

Neurologic disease subgroups showed marginal significance (OR = 0.536, p = 0.083).

This occurred in conditions when an incidental cue was presented in the first position ( t (19) = 3.7, p = 0.001, Figure 2A ), or second position (marginal significance, t (19) = 1.8, p = 0.084, Figure 2B ) or when two cues of the same color were presented ( t (19) = 2.27, p = 0.035, Figure 2C ).

The HR was attenuated in model 4 with a marginal significance; the HRs (95% CIs) were 0.71 (0.47–1.05) ( p = 0.084) and 0.73 (0.51–1.05) ( p = 0.084) for the 2 to <7 cups/week and 7 to <12 cups/week categories, respectively.

Younger group showed significantly higher scores in anxiety and depression ( P = 0.084, marginal significance) than older group.

Prediction of breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality (stages I–III) Joint analysis of patients with curable breast cancer (stages I–III) demonstrated a main effect of depression on all-cause mortality but not on breast-cancer specific mortality, such that depression at the time of cancer diagnosis increased hazards of all-cause mortality by 50 % compared to non-depressed patients (HR = 1.54 (95 % CI 1.06–2.25), p = 0.024) while the effect on breast cancer-specific mortality demonstrated an effect of similar magnitude which, however, only reached marginal significance (HR = 1.51 (95 % CI 0.95–2.41), p = 0.084) (see Table 2 and Fig. 1 ).

The latter trend held true for the second data set with marginal significance for the continuous measure of accuracy as well ( r = -0.312, t 19 = 1.43, p = 0.084).

This previous study indicated a slightly elevated risk of delirium with oseltamivir use in patients under 18 during the 2006/2007-influenza season with marginal significance (hazard ratio: 1.51, 95% CI lower: 0.95, upper: 2.40, p = 0.084).

Analysis of change in the variables revealed significance for ΔPV 100 and ΔPD 90 ( F -test, p = 0.014 and < 0.001, respectively), and ΔPV 150 and ΔUD 30 showed marginal significance ( p = 0.084 and 0.097, respectively).

Interestingly, 5-mm corneal irregularity indices were significantly less in the DALK group than in the PKP group at 1-year follow-up ( p = 0.021, Mann-Whitney test), however, there was only marginal significance at final follow-up ( p = 0.084, Mann-Whitney test) ( Table 3 and Fig. 1 ).

7%, marginal significance at p = 0.084).

Since a correlation analysis showed only a trend for females with marginal significance ( n = 60, r = 0.2251, p = 0.084), our data set might still be too small for drawing definite conclusions.

Other fractures had a marginal significance ( P =0.0849).