“marginal significance”

Among the patients receiving multimodality treatments, multivariate analyses revealed stage to be the most significant prognostic factor for OS ( II vs III , HR , 0.726; P < 0.001), but the sequence of radiotherapy and surgery was only of the marginal significance (pre‐ vs postoperative, HR , 0.875; P = 0.093).

However, the main effect of the reward approached marginal significance, F (1, 25) = 3.04, p = 0.093, η p 2 = 0.109, the interaction effect was not significant, F (1, 25) = 0.73, p = 0.4, η p 2 = 0.029.

A mixed clinicopathologic model found independent predictors of graft loss were late presentation in younger recipients with renal dysfunction, severe glomerulopathy, and interstitial fibrosis (Banff cg and ci scores), with marginal significance for C4d glom and C4d ptc ( P = 0.093 and 0.097, respectively).

T stage and lymph node metastasis showed marginal significance in plasma ctDNA multivariate models ( p = 0.093) (Supplementary Tables 2 , 3 ).

The chi-square test of BMI distribution showed marginal significance (χ2 = 4.7560, P = 0.0930).

Conversely, the main effect of CTT showed marginal significance [ F (2, 54) = 2.48, p = 0.093, η p 2 = 0.08].

However, the linear regression between these metrics showed a marginal significance ( R 2 = 0.54, SEE = 18.88%, p = .094; Fig. 2 b). 3.3.

Publication Bias As presented in Supplemental Table 1 , Egger’s test did not reveal statistical significance in 14 outcomes ( P =.123 to .686), except for marginal significance in the peak estradiol level ( P =.094).

In Dataset 2, sustained deep breathing led to a significant 30% decrease in aver_Q_ICA, whereas aver_Q_ECA showed no significant change (a 5% increase with marginal significance, p = 0.094); respiration‐band magnitudes and PI increased for flow and for ratio_Q (Table 2 ).

Substance Use In the model predicting CBV from substance use, ASMU, and gender, a trend toward a three-way interaction (that only approached marginal significance) emerged, b = −0.03, SE = 0.02, t (473) = −1.68, p = 0.094, driven by a significant Substance Use × ASMU interaction, b = 0.07, F (1, 473) = 7.53, p = 0.006, for men only.

Although there was no clear dose-response relationship, dogs receiving 1× and 4× doses had significantly greater activity time compared with dogs receiving placebo ( p = 0.0299 and p = 0.0199, respectively) and marginal significance was seen in dogs receiving 2× dose ( p = 0.0942).

In the matched cohort, it is likely that patient survival was lower in those with pretransplant dialysis ≥19 months; however, the difference had marginal significance ( P =0.095) ( Figure 4A ).

After adjusting for the covariates, the CBF breakpoint remained most distal in CAA with marginal significance ( p = 0.095; Table S3 ).

Also in accordance with Lavie and de Fockert, the magnitude of the interference was larger with marginal significance ( p = 0.095) in the degraded 100 ms condition than in the non-degraded 150 ms condition.

Whilst their variation across frequencies was statistically weak, reaching only marginal significance (sex-by-frequency interaction: χ 2 (5) = 9.38, p = 0.095, BF 01 > 150), its shape was consistent across waves (three-way interaction between sex, frequency and waves: χ 2 (10) = 11.5, p = 0.323, BF 01 > 150).

The mean test scores differed significantly between the two groups ( t 28 =3.372, p =0.002, d =1.24; figure 3 ). The live group also performed better on the two-back task, with marginal significance ( t 28 =3.046, p =0.095).

Meanwhile, at the level of separate modules the marginal significance was found for proximal epiphysis ( p = 0.095) and diaphysis ( p = 0.054), also suggesting the weak negative selection, whereas in the distal epiphysis the expected and observed regression lines overlapped with a high support ( p = 0.769, Supplementary Table S10 ) supporting the neutral evolution of that structure.

The difference in the proportion of women who reported engagement in high-risk sexual behaviors achieved marginal significance ( P =.095).

Marginal significance of CD24 expression with DFS was observed for the HER2 ( P = 0.095) and TNBC subtypes ( P = 0.087) ( S3 Fig ).

After controlling for demographic factors, such as gender and age, and the health behavior covariates, such as physical activity and social activity, the relationship between the current smokers and hypertension in Model 1 showed a marginal significance ( P = 0.096), and the OR reached 1.022 (95 CI%: 0.996, 1.048).

4 The odds of males reaching a higher adherence grade was 1.388 times that of females, with marginal significance (OR = 1.388, 95% CI: 0.943–2.043, p = 0.096). 5 Smoking history and inhaler type had no statistically significant effect on adherence grade (p) of >0.05).

On the other hand, we do not find significant differences between scenario 1 and scenario 2, except for a marginal significance with p = 0.096 in P25 ( p = 0.476 in P100, p = 0.257 in P50, p = 0.317 in P10).

In this model, lane departure events were still three times more likely to occur in the sleep-deprived condition (odds ratio = 2.50, 95% CI: 1.16, 6.17, p = 0.02), but the interaction between condition and driving duration only trended towards marginal significance ( p = 0.096).

The combined effect of CHEC showed marginal significance ( β =–.0040, SE 0.0024; t =–1.70; P =.096).

Although the overall test for deviation from linearity approached marginal significance ( P = 0.0963), the noncontributory role of nonlinear components, combined with linear regression results (Model 3: β = 0.068, 95% CI 0.030–0.105, P < 0.001), confirmed a continuous linear association between CumAIP and dementia scores, laying the foundation for subsequent dose–response relationship analyses.