“marginally significant”

P3 The main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (1, 50) = 4.03, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.075]; the HTA group had a larger P3 (2.88 ± 0.18 μV) compared with LTA group (2.39 ± 0.18 μV; Figure 4 ).

Multiple regression analysis showed a significant association between level of knowledge in relation to positive preventive action (P=0.02) while the age revealed a marginally significant association (P=0.05).

Interestingly, nurses’ extent of being educated in the subject wasn’t significantly related to their years of professional experience ( χ 2 (4) = 5.8; p = 0.22), whereas for physicians we found a marginally significant relationship ( χ 2 (4) = 9.3; p = 0.05).

The interaction with mask-wearing demonstrated a negative effect of gender role discrepancy stress on mask-wearing for men from the lower income brackets, with a statistically significant effect at the lowest level (<$30,000/year: AOR = .34, 95 CI = .18-.67, P = .002) and a marginally significant effect at the second lowest level ($30,000-$60,000/year: AOR = .54, 95% CI = .29-1.00, P = .05).

One-way ANOVA ( n = 3, since each of the NDVI scans for corn or cotton was done with three replicates) indicated that, except for corn under full irrigation on June 11 that exhibited a marginally significant diurnal change ( p = 0.056), five other diurnal courses of NDVI for corn/cotton all showed significant or highly significant diurnal trends ( p < 0.05).

Tajima's D-test was marginally significant for this gene (0.1 < P -value < 0.05).

The interaction between Intention and Interlocutor was found to be marginally significant if we adopted the conventional rule of determining a significant effect when p < .05 ( β = −0.419, SE = 0.21, z = −1.998, p = .046, odds ratio: 0.66, 95% CI [0.42, 0.97]).

The decrease in the prevalence of underweight among children treated with praziquantel compared to the control children was marginally significant ( p = 0.05) after clustering for village.

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

The association between the genotype TT and the increased cancer risk was marginally significant in Caucasians and in female subjects: OR = 3.35 [95% CI (1.01, 11.11)], P = 0.05, P heterogeneity = 0.01, and OR = 3.88 [95% CI (0.94, 16.01)], P = 0.06, P heterogeneity = 0.01, respectively (Table 1 , Figure 2 , 3 ).

There were significant effects of the fixed factors ‘treatment’ [F(4, 171.739) = 9.743, p < 0.001] and ‘diagnosis’ [F(1, 73.367) = 5.033, p = 0.028], and marginally significant interaction between treatment and diagnosis [F(4, 171.739) = 2.422, p = 0.05].

les were significantly associated with suicidal ideation: we highlighted a protective role of enrolment before lockdown ( Table 4 , OR = 0.56 [0.4–0.78], p < 0.001; meaning that before lockdowns, the risk of suicidal ideation was halved with respect to after restrictive measures were effective) and marginally significant protection linked to enrolment during lockdown (OR = 0.58, [0.36–0.95], p < 0.05).

As we examined the collective effect of marginally significant SNPs and found enrichment in two autoimmune diseases in the PS approach, here we focused our analysis on SNPs with at least nominally significant P values ( P < 0.05).

Time trends for isoniazid prevalence (increase) and MDR TB (decrease) among new cases were marginally significant ( F = 3.33, p<0.05, and F = 1.13, p<0.05) but in opposite directions.

However, there was a marginally significant interaction between group and session ( P < 0.05) such that the probiotic group showed improved accuracy in recognising facial expressions following the intervention.

The expectation by SA interaction was marginally significant [ F (1,53) = 4.12, p = 0 .05, η p 2 = 0.07], suggesting that memory performance for expected and unexpected stimuli varied with SA level.

No significant difference was observed in other complications, THC, LOS, and mortality rates before and after PSM although marginally significant in 1-year and 2-year mortalities after PSM ( p =0.050 and p =0.053, respectively), which need to be interpreted with caution.

In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, a marginally significant association was found among Caucasians (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.02 – 5.80, P = 0.05) but not among Asians (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.67 – 2.32, P = 0.49) (Table 2 ).

This association became marginally significant after accounting for demographic characteristics (Model 2, OR for most vs. least 0.93, 95% CL 0.86–1.00, p = 0.05; OR for mid-high vs. least 0.82 and OR for mid-low vs. least 0.85 with p < 0.01 for both) and past vigorous PA (Model 3, OR 0.92 for most vs. least, 95% CL 0.86–0.99, p = 0.02; OR for mid-high vs. least is 0.88 and is significant at p < 0.001; OR for mid-low vs. least not significant), but was no longer significant after accounting for health-related covariates ( Table 2 ).

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 ).

The time-window × difference interaction was also marginally significant [ F (1,34) = 4.15, p = 0.05] showing that the increase in effect magnitude from P2 to N400 was larger for semantic ( p < 0.001) than WK ( p < 0.01) violations.

Among demographic characteristics, age exhibited an encouraging and marginally significant association (OR = 1.03, P < .05), indicating that older people in this cohort face more challenges in obtaining affordable care.

Effort ratings increased from low to high demand ( p < 0.01) and showed a marginally significant increase at excessive vs. high demand ( p = 0.05).

A single mlh3 deletion has a relatively small effect on in/del repair, slightly raising the efficiency of insertion repair compared to wild type and slightly decreasing the efficiency of deletion repair, although the difference in both cases is marginally significant (P = 0.05) ( Tables 3 and 4 ).

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