“marginally significant”

The mean number of SICI trials retained was greater than 20 trials in both groups (mean number of trials for patients = 20.78 (5.03); mean number of trials for controls = 23.14 (2.59)); there was only a marginally significant difference in the number of trials between groups (t = 2.0, P = 0.05).

There is a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.05) in change of BCI performance from session 1 to session 3 between method G1:LAP/S–G2:CSP/L (PVC ± S.E.M, 11.6 ± 5.0%); no significant difference ( p = 0.81) between method G3:CSP/S–G2:CSP/L (3.0 ± 5.0%); no significant difference ( p = 0.20) between method G3:CSP/S–G1:LAP/S (−8.6 ± 5.0%).

The difference in frequency of CC, CT and TT genotypes was marginally significant among male PACG cases (37.25, 37.25 and 25.50%) as compared to control males (26.03, 52.97 and 21.00%) ( p = 0.050, OR CT = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.24–1.00) but not among POAG males (27.23%; 58.41 and 14.36%) ( p = 0.818, OR CT = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.67–1.65).

monilis , the decrease in clinging ability was marginally significant ( N =11, test day 5 versus 30, P =0.05, estimated marginal least square means post hoc comparisons).

In the present study, when the HGF/SF level in saliva was compared between Group I and Group II, the difference in the mean HGF/SF level in saliva was marginally significant ( P <0.05).

ngagement Strategies pathway (β = 0.224, p < 0.001); Hypothesis H5 demonstrated robust support, revealing the strongest direct effect where Psychological Resilience significantly enhanced Cognitive Engagement Strategies (β = 0.366, p < 0.001); Finally, Hypothesis H6 was partially supported, showing marginally significant positive influence of Psychological Resilience on Academic Motivation (β = 0.149, p < 0.05).

There was also a marginally significant group*time interaction for executive function ( p = 0.05).

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.

However, in deaths from infection, patients with HbA1c≥8% showed a worse survival only in the patients who underwent PD ( P = 0.050, marginally significant) ( Fig 5 ).

The utterance‐level variable, length of utterance, significantly differentiated fluent utterances from PWR, and syntactic complexity was marginally significant ( p = 0.05) for fluent versus WWR comparisons.

In non-diabetic participants (n = 8610), though the associations of the two GRSs with the four lipids were weakened, the results of causal association analyses were consistent with the analyses in the whole study sample, except for TC which was marginally significant in analysis with the Conservative GRS ( P = 0.05) (Supplemental Table 6 ).

A marginally significant OS difference was also noticed in high-quality than in low-quality TE inserted group in the subgroup analysis (100.0% vs. 71.4%, P = 0.05).

A Chi-square test revealed a marginally significant association between job category and perceived course disproportion [χ 2 (100) = 124.29, p = 0.050].

It remained marginally significant when controlling for province (β = 0.003, p = 0.05), but province itself was not significantly associated with total wait time (partial F test = 0.88, p = 0.56).

For CpG2, we found a marginally significant effect of group ( F (3,43) = 2.79, P = 0.05) which was again driven by reduced CpG2 methylation in MS_SI group compared to CON group showing a trend toward significance ( P = 0.1; Figure 7B ).

Regarding DED symptoms, a marginally significant trend in DEQ-5 scores was observed, in which patients with elevated TC (>200 mg/dl) and LDL levels (>130 mg/dl) reported more severe DED symptoms ( p < 0.05) ( Figure 1(c) ).

A marginally significant correlation was found between the two ( r = 0.25, p = 0.05).

This was marginally significant in one-way ANOVA with repeated measures (F(2,28) = 4.9, p<0.05; n = 15, Fig 9G , lower part), however variability was high due to opposite (n = 2) or no (n = 3) response from 5 cells.

A marginally significant association was observed between nicotine use and child ACEs (F = 3.39, p = .05), There was no significant association observed between nicotine use and or F 2 -IsoPs (F = 2.21, p = .14).

At Setting 2, the two imaging variables (i.e., deep learning signature and radiomics signature) remain significant with similar hazard ratios, along with the following new observations: CEA became marginal (p=0.06), pT became insignificant (p=0.88)), PNI became marginally significant (p=0.05), gross appearance became insignificant (p=0.64), and chemotherapy’s hazard ratio increased to 0.440 from 0.254.

This was demonstrated to be marginally significant ( P <0.05), but compares poorly to the 70% inhibition of α -MSH on HBL cells, and 35% inhibition on A375-SM cells.

While the direct effect of anxiety was strongly significant ( β = 0.341**, p < 0.01), a marginally significant indirect effect (0.054*, p < 0.05) suggested weak complementary mediation.

Post-hoc analysis of change scores showed that MMT yielded a better effect on improving FMA-UE than the other two therapies, at a marginally significant level ( P = 0.050 and 0.022, respectively).

Variables used in the multivariate model were those that had shown a marginally significant (p < 0.05) relation with the perinatal outcomes in univariate analysis.

Lead was the only metal that had a marginally significant lower blood concentration in ASD cases compared to TD controls ( p = 0.05).