“marginally significant”

Phylogenetic generalised least squares regression The phylogenetic generalised least squares (PGLS) analyses on the Bulbophyllum backbone phylogeny revealed a generally strong, either marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.883, P = 0.060) or highly significant ( R 2 = 0.993, P = 0.004) relationship of, respectively, the stem and crown ages of the four lineages with their extant species numbers.

A 2 × 2 mixed-factor ANOVA (group x set size) revealed a marginally significant main effect of set size with higher binding errors at a set size of three, relative to two, items (F (1,49) = 9.24, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.16).

Skill variable is also marginally significant: after the Skill game the subjects overall subtract 15% less of their targets' winnings than after the Luck game ( t = −3.66, p = 0.004).

The change in performance for the Jump Down Test was marginally significant in discordance with changes in the sensorimotor variable cEQ Score measuring balance control ( P = 0.004).

However, there’s a marginally significant trend for gender ( p = 0.053) and a significant trend for drinking status ( p = 0.004), suggesting that the effect of social activities might vary more substantially across these categories.

Interestingly, a marginally significant odds ratio (1.01, 95%CI 1.00-1.01; P = .004) was obtained for a lower CD4 nadir when the considered virologic outcome was TND.

The insert tab task was marginally significant in predicting trial duration, F (22,1) = 10.2, p = 0.004, R 2 = 0.33, β = 2 seconds.

In the main cohort study, there were significant or marginally significant differences between the three groups in age [F(2,159) = 5.76, p = 0.004], gender [χ 2 (2) = 6.74, p = 0.034], and living situation [χ 2 (2) = 5.76, p = 0.056].

In this Cox model, age, pathological TNM classification, and TP53 mutation were also significant or marginally significant factors for overall survival ( p = .004, .073, and .051, respectively).

It should be noted that although the iV1-cV1 connection revealed a marginally significant interaction effect ( p = 0.004), simple effects analyses demonstrated that this interaction was driven by the surprising significantly higher correlations produced by control non-dominant-eye compared with dominant eye viewing ( p = 0.014), whereas strabismic participants with amblyopia showed marginally lower correlations from amblyopic eye compared with fellow eye viewing conditions ( p = 0.051).

MLT was highly significant in the KM, PKRM, and LKRM scenarios ( p ≤ 0.004), marginally significant in the IKRM scenario ( p = 0.049), and not-significant in the RM scenario ( p = 0.055).

As shown in Models 2 and 5 in SI Appendix , Table S12 , Nudging Weekly Logins showed a directional BH-adjusted impact on student progress during weeks 5 to 8 (additional lessons completed = 0.08, 4.49% increase; d = 0.02; unadjusted P = 0.01, BH-adjusted P = 0.11) and a marginally significant BH-adjusted impact during weeks 9 to 12 (additional lessons completed = 0.07, 5.31% increase; d = 0.02; unadjusted P = 0.004, BH-adjusted P = 0.06).

Results of the log‐rank test were marginally significant (x 2 = 8.417, P = 0.004): individuals without an elevated CUGBP1 had a TTP of 7.868 months, while those with an elevated CUGBP1 had a TTP of 5.076 months, as shown in Figure 2 .

The analyses show significant and marginally significant associations of this allele with HDL-C ( β = -3.8, p = 4.7×10 −3 ) and TG ( β = 6.6, p = 3.3×10 −3 ) in ARIC and BMI ( β = -3.4, p = 5.7×10 −2 ) in the FHS original cohort ( S1 Table ).

Consistent with the stated hypothesis, people with proportionally lower cNFL concentration had a marginally significant increase in brain atrophy measured by semiquantitative outcome ( P = 0.0049) and BPFr ( P = 0.053) in the training cohort.

Moreover, three of these correlations were highly significant ( p < 0.005 for all three correlations), while a fourth was marginally significant ( p = 0.076).

Although this model shows a marginally significant coefficient ( p < 0.005) for logP in comparison to other descriptors of the model ( p < 0.001) when considered alone, its inclusion is essential because lipophilicity influences both solubility and the ability to partition into the lipid bilayer of the epithelium.

Gene set enrichment analyses were performed with the clusterProfiler Bioconductor package ( 57 ), using the hypergeometric test to assess enrichment of marginally significant DEGs (at P < 0.005) that were stratified by case–control directionality, against a background of all expressed genes that had Entrez gene IDs.

Absorbed dose is a marginally significant predictor for progression ( p value = 0.005).

For PCV, only rs36005462 in an independent domain showed a marginally significant association (OR = 0.58; P = 0.0050).

Importantly, the correlation remained marginally significant after introducing sex, age, years of education, neuroticism (N) and MWT-B verbal IQ as covariates (r = −.29; p = .005).

, body weight in men was positively correlated with knee extensor muscle strength in a marginally significant manner ( r = 0 . 222 , p = 0 . 005 ). 38 Contrarily, it was found that in females ( r = 0 . 004 , p = 0 . 985 ) body weight was not correlated with knee extensor muscle strength. 38 In addition, Miyatake et al. ’s study demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation between leg stren

Furthermore, a marginally significant difference was observed for the 100% propylene glycol condition ( p < 0.005).

We observed a significant CR-SOCIAL main effect in the theta frequency band for eyes-open local LLC values, F (1,94) = 16.060 p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.146, along with a marginally significant CR-SOCIAL main effect in low alpha, F (1,94) = 8.385, p = 0.005, η p 2 = 0.082.

Listed for every significant cluster ( p < 0.005, k ≥ 10) are anatomical regions; hemispheres (“H”) as left (“L”), right (“R”), or bilateral (“B”); stereotactic coordinates in MNI space in mm ( x , y , z ); test statistics ( t df ); probability values ( p ); cluster extents in voxels ( k ); and results of small‐volume correction (SVC) at the cluster level (“C”) or the peak level (“P”) ( p FWE < 0.05), where marginally significant (“c” or “p” in lower case) (0.05 < p FWE < 0.10) or uncorrected (“U”) ( p < 0.005) results are also listed if the most stringent threshold for SVC was not attained within the region of interest.