“marginally significant”

The statement “My family really tries to help me” was marginally significant, with current substance users being 54% more likely to disagree with this statement than those not using substances (aOR 1.54; 95% CI 0.998-2.391; P=0.05).

There was a marginally significant difference between group means F (1, 32) = 4.05, p = .05, η p 2 = .11, with deaf children performing worse than hearing children.

Using “feedback on behavior” yielded a marginally significant effect on HbA1c change ( β = −0.31, p = 0.05).

T 3 - and vehicle-injected males also showed a marginally significant difference in their preferences ( W (32) = 61, p < 0.05, d = 0.98).

Moderation analysis indicated a marginally significant moderating effect of marital status on the intervention’s impact on overall loneliness at T3, with results favouring the MBOA group (p=0.05).

Besides rs6697469, there were 2 additional SNPs showed marginally significant association signals with hip fractures, which were rs10917588 ( P = 0.050) and rs7553831 ( P = 0.058).

Forest plot ( Figure 6 ) showed that the diamond was on the left side of vertical line and infinitely close to it, which demonstrates that the mean concentration of CSF α -syn was slightly decreased in PD compared to PSP, and the difference was marginally significant (SMD: −0.57, 95% CI: [−1.14, −0.00], Z = 1.97, P = 0.05). 3.7.

A two-way interaction between condition and depressive symptoms was marginally significant ( F 1,92 = 3.93, p = 0.05, partial eta squared = 0.04), suggesting that the effect of the training task on change in negative affect varied as a function of participants’ symptoms of depression.

The SEM with temporal variables showed marginally significant ( p = 0.05) positive dust coefficients for 6- to 23-month-old children in 1994–1998, suggesting higher dust IRs during those years.

This association was attenuated and marginally significant after adjustment for BMI (OR = 0.77, p=0.05) and no longer significant after adjustment for VAT (OR = 0.83, p=0.18).

However, the interaction between land use and antibiotic was marginally significant (χ 2 =9.6, df=4, P =0.05).

There was a marginally significant valence by group interaction ( F (2,123) = 3.08, p = 0.05).

Pregnancy rates after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with the use of testicular sperm retrieved from men with NOA also favored the varicocelectomy group, as shown by marginally significant results on live birth rates (OR = 2.19; 95% CI: 0.99–4.83; P = 0.05).

Other ethnicities showed a marginally significant reduction (-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.00, P = 0.05).

NBS analysis showed a marginally significant cluster ( p = .050) consisting of 13 ROIs and 14 edges with negative correlation between FC change (baseline minus posttreatment) and ΔHRSD.

Comparing bias scores across groups (see Table 4 ), analyses indicated a significant main effect of valence ( F (2,123) = 6.64, p = .0018) and group ( F (1,124) = 5.78, p = .0177) with patients showing greater bias scores than controls with a marginally significant valence by group interaction ( F (2,123) = 3.08, p = .05).

Marginally significant seasonal effect on fungal compositional pattern was also detected (R 2 = 0.06; p = 0.05), where the 95% confidence interval ellipses for autumn and winter were isolated, denoting distinct composition (Table 2 ; Fig. 3 a).

Supplementary Table 2 reports the parameter estimates for the same moderators using non-PVC data, which shows the same pattern of results, but a heightened effect of BMI such that males show a marginally significant or trending relationship between higher BMI and greater tau accumulation in left Braak56 ( β = -0.746, p = 0.05) in right Braak34 ( β = -0.614, p = 0.09). 4.

The conidiophore stalk length was highly variable in all strains but the difference between the xprG + and xprG2 is marginally significant (p = 0.05).

Nonetheless the correlation between qHBsAg titers and HTLV-1 oligoclonality index remained marginally significant ( P = .05, R = 0.53, Spearman).

We observed a marginally significant association of the G allele in ERCC4 -rs744154 with breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60–1.00, P =0.05) and BRCA2 (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.45–1.02, P =0.06) mutation carriers.

Additionally, analysis of sham rTMS studies showed a marginally significant decrease in YGTSS compared to baseline (MD = -4.39; 95% CI: [-8.75, -0.03], P = 0.050, I 2 = 0%; Figure 2A ).

Similarly, PTSPC mean score was higher among clinical students than preclinical students (M = 17.2, SD = 5.2 vs M = 15.8, SD = 5.1; p value = 0.01; Table 3 ). In contrast, preclinical students in Nepal had a higher perception of atmosphere than the clinical students, and the results were marginally significant (M = 28.0, SD = 6.8 vs M = 26.3, SD = 5.8, p value = 0.05; Table 3 ).

Individual repeatability for inspection time was marginally significant ( R = 0.14, p = 0.05, CI = 0.0, 0.84) while controlling for flush and presentation order, but this effect was not significant when two visually obvious outliers were removed ( R = 0.11, p = 0.11, CI = 0.0, 0.74), and when not controlling for significant fixed factors (non-adjusted repeatability: R = 0.07, p = 0.39, CI = 0.0, 0.74). 3.3.

A 2 (context) × 2 (relative outcome magnitude) × 2 (valence) repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on the response time (RT) for making the initial choice in the trial following presentation of outcomes, yielded a marginally significant effect of valence factor, F(1, 17) = 4.456, p = .050, with a longer response time after wins (769.495±378.808 ms) than after losses (649.482±227.666 ms).