“marginally nonsignificant”

Within subjects, day number, and the interaction between initial body mass and day significantly influenced morning body mass ( F 1,63 = 5.16, P = 0.03 and F 1,63 = 5.10, P = 0.03, respectively), whereas the interaction effect between treatment and day number was marginally nonsignificant ( F 1,63 = 3.111, P = 0.083).

At the 25th quantile, the group effect was marginally nonsignificant (q = 0.25: coefficient = − 3.78, 95% CI: − 8.05, 0.50, p = 0.083).

Additionally, a marginally nonsignificant improvement in well-being was observed in the self-experience group compared with the relaxation group ( F (1, 126) = 2.99, p = .086, d = .261) ( Figure 3 ).

Treatment alone remained as a marginally nonsignificant predictor in males ( F 1,19 = 3.26, P = 0.086; Fig. 1 B), but no tendency was observed in females ( F 1,19 = 0.22, P = 0.641; Fig. 1 C).

All metrics were significantly reduced in colonies receiving QMP + methyl oleate (number of active cells: estimate = 1.4, z = 3.0, Tukey-adjusted P = 0.0066; charged cells: estimate = 1.8, z = 3.0, Tukey-adjusted P = 0.0072; cell score: estimate = 1.5, z = 3.2, Tukey-adjusted P = 0.0040) except for the likelihood of having active queen cells, which had a marginally nonsignificant reduction (estimate = 2.6, z = 2.1, P = 0.089).

Consistent with the heterogeneity results, MR-PRESSO excluded outlier variants and estimated a corrected causal estimate that showed a marginally nonsignificant causal effect of GERD on T2D (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.99–1.23], P = 9.00 × 10 −2 ) [Fig. 4 and Supplementary Data 4 ].

With adjustment for baseline UPCR in Model 4, the hazard ratio for High/High 2-year pattern was still significantly different from the Low/Low pattern (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.42) though the overall type 3 P value testing for differences between all levels of the variable was marginally nonsignificant at P = 0.09.

This difference was marginally nonsignificant after controlling for relevant covariates ( B = -1.57, SE = .93, t( 67 ) = -1.69, p = .095).

Although interesting, these results should be interpreted cautiously and confirmed in other studies; the subgroup of survivors who were treated within the previous year and experienced employment disruption was small, and the association between employment disruption and financial hardship among this subgroup was only marginally nonsignificant ( P = 0.10).

This interaction effect was marginally nonsignificant (LM, GSI x treatment: F 2, 19 = 2.552, p = 0.10; Body weight: F 1, 19 = 5.2686, p = 0.03).

Generally, if the lowest AICc model retained a marginally nonsignificant predictor (0.05< P -value<0.1) but exhibited a sum of Akaike weights (sw) greater than 50%, it was considered an important model predictor.

Regarding the program of study, business students demonstrated significantly higher odds of pharmacological management compared to general science students (Exp( B ) = 3.78, p = 0.03; 95% CI [1.10, 13.05]), while visual arts students showed marginally nonsignificant increased odds (Exp( B ) = 4.44, p = 0.10; 95% CI [0.75, 26.22]).

The content of linoleic acid (C18:2n6c) was numerically lower in the SA group and higher in the PO group; however, this difference was marginally nonsignificant ( p = 0.107).

Apiaries treated with chemical treatments (hard and soft) had a mean survival of 52% and those treated with mechanical treatments had a mean survival of 36.6% though this difference was marginally nonsignificant ( P = 0.117).

The analysis showed a nonsignificant result for peak acceleration ( p =0.523) and a marginally nonsignificant result for distance traveled ( p =0.135).

29 Yang et al found marginally nonsignificant differences in OS (median: C-SCLC, 10.00 vs pure SCLC, 9.00 months; P = 0.17) based on the SEER database. 30 Although the current C-SCLC case had progressed to stage IV at the initial diagnosis, her survival time far exceeded the median overall survival times of previously reported C-SCLC patients with active and reasonable treatment strategies.

3 A) demonstrated a linear relationship between BRI and infertility risk, with a significant overall association ( p < 0.001) and a marginally nonsignificant nonlinear component ( p = 0.240).

Although the FW6 × FW7 interaction effect was marginally nonsignificant in the S 1 family analysis (Pr > F = 0.11), the pattern observed among the two‐locus genotypic means substantiated the strength and nature of the epistatic interaction between FW6 and FW7 (Table 2 ; Figure 4 ).

Furthermore, sub-group analysis by polyphenol groups revealed a positive effect for flavonoids that was only marginally nonsignificant.

hecale also exhibited a marginally nonsignificant bias for the learned color ( Table S6 ).

After excluding recipients who died during the initial hospitalization following LT (n=4) and censoring for death related to tumor recurrence (n=3) in a supplementary analysis, the difference in graft survival yielded a marginally nonsignificant result (log-rank p =0.060); however, with a numerically worse outcome for patients who received SCS-treated allografts (HOPE 1.000, 0.952, 0.952 vs.

Delaying the start of follow‐up by 2 years led to a similar risk estimate, although the association became marginally nonsignificant in the setting of fewer incident events.

Overall, the varying grace periods produced consistent results with the primary analysis and showed a marginally nonsignificant association but with reduced precision.

This difference, with a p -value of 0.082, was also marginally nonsignificant, suggesting that there might be a trend towards a better mental quality of life in the conservative approach group, but this was not conclusively demonstrated.

A more pronounced nonlinear association was observed for PhenoAge acceleration, which was marginally nonsignificant in its overall association ( p overall = 0.0762) but exhibited a highly significant nonlinear trend ( p nonlinear = 0.0026).