“marginally significant”

An additional regression analysis conducted on 50% of bilingual children with highest weighted exposure and on matched monolingual peers revealed a main effect of Age ( p < 0.01), but only a marginally significant effect of Group ( p = 0.05), and no interaction of Group and Age ( p = 0.89).

There was also a marginally significant emotion × laterality × group interaction effect on the occipital LPP2 amplitudes [ F (2,72) = 3.08, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.08].

All means are presented ± 1 SE and considered marginally significant if 0.10 < P > 0.05, and significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Two RCTs (n = 19 and 21, respectively) in breast cancer survivors measured disease-specific biomarkers and reported marginally significant improvements in circulating IL-6 and IGF-1 (p = 0.05 and 0.06, respectively) [ 16 ].

second half) ANOVA showed only a marginally significant main effect of Part [ F (1, 76) = 4.07, p = 0.05] but a significant Part × Piece interaction [ F (2, 76) = 3.53, p = 0.03].

A 2 × 8 mixed ANOVA showed a significant main Treatment effect ( F (1,9) = 9.46; p = 0.013), Session effect ( F (7,63) = 13.21; p = 2.4e-10) and a marginally significant Treatment × Session interaction ( F (7,63) = 2.15; p = 0.05) on the proportion of perfect trials ( Figure 3(a) ), suggesting a better performance for the rats injected with L-733,060.

Marginally significant main effect of stimulus pair (F=3.98, p=0.05) was revealed in the test phase, with controls showing a significantly higher preference in Frequent Winner vs Frequent Loser (FWFL) pair than patients (t=-2.25, p=0.028).

Additionally, a marginally significant 2-way interaction effect between family resilience and caregiver needs was also observed ( b = −0.01, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.001]).

In subgroup analyses ( Figure 5 ), we found marginally significant results favoring boys vs. girls in children aged 3 (SMD = 0.27 (95% CI 0.00, 0.54), p = 0.05) and significant results favoring boys vs. girls aged 4, 5 and 6 years (SMD = 0.58 (95% CI 0.38, 0.77), p < 0.00001; SMD = 0.59 (95% CI 0.31, 0.88), p < 0.00001; SMD = 0.81 (95% CI 0.61, 1.01), p < 0.00001), which increased with age. 3.6.

The above pattern of results was evident in the significant ( F 1 ) and marginally significant ( F 2 ) Consistency × Location × Group interaction ( F (1, 55) = 4.51, p < .05, η p 2 = .08; F 2 (1, 2) = 12.99, p < .1, η p 2 = .87).

The ROS levels in U87 cells treated with the four nanoparticles were slightly higher than in the control group, with NaTmF 4 @SiO 2 showing a marginally significant difference ( p < 0.05).

The difference in SE for competence was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

Additionally, a marginally significant association was found between the CNV and body diagonal length in HS ( p -value = 0.050).

Marginally significant genes and proteins (p<0.05) from eQTLGen and Gudjonsson for IA were selected as the inputs given the limited number of significant exposures.

In the multivariate analysis, mucinous tumors were marginally significant (p-value = 0.05), with patients having mucinous tumors more frequently having PIK3CA mutations (OR 2.61; 95% CI 0.99–6.87).

Three-year OS was marginally significant in patients with stage I/II compared with patients with stage III (64.3% vs 19.4%; P =.05).

However, baseline right hemisphere BA25 metabolism showed a marginally significant correlation with change from baseline MADRS, whereby higher baseline metabolism predicted better response to O/F therapy ( r = 0.68, P = .05).

For right hemisphere TD run 5, there was a significant Type of Processing effect in the first component, F (2,94) = 3.97, p = 0.02, MSE = 0.91, partial eta squared = 0.08, and a marginally significant Type of Processing effect in the sixth component F (2,94) = 3.13, p = 0.05, MSE = 0.54, partial eta squared = 0.06.

The main effect of object size was marginally significant (F(1,24) = 4.16, p>.05, η p 2 = .15).

The difference in PFS was marginally significant when PD-L1 expression status of lymph node metastasis was used (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.38–1.04, P=0.05, n=61).

The effect of marriage was marginally significant, F (1, 55) = 3.91, p = .05, partial η 2 = .07.

For the IVET group, SPQ decreased from pre-test to post-test, t (17) = 2.03, p = 0.033, d = 0.56 and gains were maintained with a marginally significant improvement from post-test to 1-month follow up, t (17) = 2.11, p = 0.050, d = 0.50.

There was a marginally significant main effect of condition: F (1,28) = 4.12, P = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.13, with greater discrimination for congruent (mean = 0.41, SD = 0.91 than incongruent (mean = −0.07, SD = 0.74) stimuli.

We additionally checked for marginally significant maternal TDT P -values ( P < 0.05) at the SNP closest to the centromere and telomere on both arms of metacentric chromosomes and the q arm of acrocentric chromosomes.

After adjusting for age, gender and BMI, there was a statistically significant association between the total severity score and pack-years of smoking ( P <0.001), smoking status ( P <0.001), arterial hypertension ( P =0.001), diabetes ( P =0.004), dyslipidemia ( P =0.04), sedentary lifestyle ( P =0.02) and previous CV events ( P =0.01); the association with family history of CV disease was marginally significant ( P =0.05).