“marginally significant”

Chondroitin sulfate degradation shows a marginally significant p -value ( p = 0.05).

The result showed AST had marginally significant effect on SBP reduction (MD = −4.15; 95% CI = −8.34, 0.04; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.05; Figure 4 ).

For peak amplitude, the interaction effect of emotion × gender of observer × gender of body expression was marginally significant ( F (1,38) = 4.09, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.097).

The AUC comparison for anxiety was marginally significant (Z = 1.93, p = 0.05), indicating that the Loneliness Scale was slightly more accurate in classifying this disorder.

The main effects of school-based involvement ( β = 0.13, p < 0.001) and parent-teacher relationship ( β = 0.26, p < 0.001) were both significant, while their interaction term was marginally significant ( β = 0.12, p = 0.05).

732/1619 control subjects, a marginally significant odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 1.12–1.54, p < 0.05) was obtained.

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

This trend is considered marginally significant (MW-test: p < 0.05, KS-test: p < 0.15).

lanceolatum MRF neighborhood and human chromosomes 11 and 12 (binomial test, 11: P < 2 × 10 −3 , 12: P < 1 × 10 −2 ; Barnard’s exact test, 11: P < 1 × 10 −10 , 12: P < 2 × 10 −8 ; supplementary information 6 c – d , Supplementary Material online), whereas there was no significant association observed with chromosome 1, and only a marginally significant association with 19 in one of the tests (Barnard’s exact test, P < 0.05).

The intervention period of less than 6 weeks improved the response time to a certain extent, showing a marginally significant effect (SMD = −0.68, p = 0.05), while the intervention period exceeding 6 weeks did not make the response time reach statistical significance (SMD = −1.03, p > 0.07).

Given the exploratory nature of the work, marginally significant results ( p = 0.05 to p = 0.08) were also identified where these conferred with significant effects in a similar measure, to ensure no effects were missed. p -values are used to denote effects of interest considering the absence of any suggestion at present on the clinical significance of any measure of sweet taste liking or preference [ 31 ]. 3.

The egg mass size × species interaction effect was found to be marginally significant (χ 2 = 3.84; df = 1; p = 0.050).

Further analysis identified pCRP >30 mg/dl (hazard ratio (HR) 3.15, confidence interval (CI) 1.22–8.14, p = 0.018) and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (logistic EuroSCORE I (ES)) >20% (HR 2.95, CI 1.17–7.47, p = 0.02) as predictors of mortality; in this context, we also discovered a marginally significant trend for pL > 14/nl (HR 2.44, CI 0.97–6.14, p = 0.05).

In the case of direct fitness, this effect was marginally significant when individuals were grouped as 4+ ( β = −0.53 ± 0.30, χ 2 = 3.78, p = 0.05) but not when assigned their true age (Table S1 c).

3.5 The Role of Water Quality Perceptions in Purchasing A GSEM model with economic stress as the predictor, quality concerns as the mediator, and frequency of purchasing as the outcome indicated that economic stress was a marginally significant predictor of perceived quality ( B = 0.23, SE = 0.12, z = 1.96, p = 0.050) and that perceived quality concerns significantly predicted purchasing behavior ( B = 0.37, SE = 0.17, z = 2.16, p = 0.031) (Table 13 ).

Across provenances, seedling performance tended to decline as annual precipitation at the planting site exceeded that at the provenance origin (ΔPRT; β ≈ −1.26), although this effect was marginally significant ( p ≈ 0.05, Fig. 3 ).

Marginally significant differences were found between younger participants and middle age groups [two-sample t-test, t (128) = 1.94, p = 0.05] [Fig. 4(B) ]; while no significant difference were observed between young and old groups [ t (58) = 1.51, p = 0.13] and middle and older age groups [ t (88) = 0.50, p = 0.62].

There was also a marginally significant interaction between cue valence and cue validity ( F (1,96) = 3.95, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.040).

Main Effects of Prediabetes and Sex in Overall Sample and MCI Subgroup Outcome: Change in AD Markers Over Time In the overall sample, a marginally significant Prediabetes x Time interaction ( p = 0.05) indicated that CMRglu in normoglycemics declined faster over time from their higher baseline measure (B = −0.0015, SE = 0.0001, p < 0.001) compared to prediabetics (B = −0.0011, SE = 0.0001, p < 0.001).

The chi-square test was marginally significant, χ 2 (2) = 5.87, p = .05.

The pattern of results was highly similar: a significant main effect of BART condition: F (2,343) = 8.00, p < 0.001, η p 2 = .05, no main effect of Raven’s SPM: F (1,343) = 0.16, p = 0.69 η p 2 < .001, a significant BART condition by Raven’s SPM interaction: F (2,343) = 1.56, p = 0.02, η p 2 = .02, and a marginally significant three-way interaction between BART condition, Raven’s SPM and sex: F (2,343) = 3.02, p = 0.05, η p 2 = .02.

For allodynia, this model yielded a significant time by condition interaction (unstandardized β = −5.28, p = 0.002) and state PCS was a marginally significant predictor (unstandardized β = 2.40, p = 0.05).

The direct association between screen time and well-being was small, positive, and statistically marginally significant (β = 0.05, p < 0.05, 95% CI [0.000, 0.093]).

The correlations between MCV and MMA ( r = 0.28, P = 0.006) and the composite B12 indicator ( r = −0.30, P < 0.001) were both highly significant, whereas the association between serum B12 and MCV was marginally significant ( r = −0.22, P = 0.05).

There was a marginally significant effect of gender on R, F (1,158) = 3.90, p = .050.