“marginally significant”

Other ethnicities showed a marginally significant reduction (-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.00, P = 0.05).

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 result reflects that there is no difference in age, sex, employment status, monthly income level, marital status, cause of disability, caregiver(s), or residence, but there was significant difference in long-term control medication ( χ 2 = 14.67, p < 0.001) and marginally significant in education level( χ 2 = 9.41, p = 0.05).

ER-positive status was found in 98.8% of ILCs versus 86.6% of IDCs (p<0.01), and PR-positive status was found in 82.9% of ILCs and in 73.0% of IDCs, with a marginally significant difference (p=0.05).

aging resting state functional MRI intrinsic connectivity contrast time shift analysis cerebral blood flow In models that included gender, education, and depression symptoms as covariates, the effect of age was reduced in the majority of ROIs and remained significant (or marginally significant) in the temporal pole [ F (1,61) = 4.20, p = 0.05; Partialr age−ICC = 0.435, p = 0.001], vmPFC [ F (1,61) = 6.92, p = 0.01; Partialr age−ICC = 0.426, p = 0.002], putamen [ F (1,61) = 3.99, p = 0.05; Partialr age−ICC = 0.384, p = 0.005], and inferior occipital gyrus [ F (1,61) = 4.08, p = 0.05; Partialr age−ICC =-0.360, p = 0.009; see Figure 2 ].

There was a marginally significant ( p = 0.05) association between the number of PT visits and the increase in 2-min Step Test score at follow-up, regardless of time point.

SSMT, I 2 = 97%) and marginally significant results (SMD = 4.05, 95% CI: 0.06 to 8.05, p = 0.05), suggesting potential data instability.

The result revealed a marginally significant pooled effect size (Hedges’ g = 3.108, 95% CI: 0.008 to 6.208, p = 0.050), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 87.3%, Q = 37.291, p < 0.001), although all included studies reported statistically significant higher expression of SP in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis compared to healthy controls.

Reproductive rate was negatively related to the effect of wetland amount on bird population abundance and the effect of reproductive rate was marginally significant (ES Z r = −0.25; 95% CI: −0.506, −0.001; p = 0.050) while the effect of body length was non-significant (ES Z r = 0.12; 95% CI: −0.056, 0.261; p = 0.205).

We also checked whether effects of crisis strategy depend on Firm age or Firm size ; however without any significant results except older SMEs that marginally significant expect higher turnover (β = 7.30; SE = 3.76; p = 0.05). 5.

We found a marginally significant sex difference at 1 h post wake-up ( p = 0.05), indicating that women had higher cortisol output at this time-point, but no other sex differences for any of the cortisol time points (all p ’s > 0.11).

The clinically equivalent medium-dose BCG treatment demonstrated a marginally significant anti-tumor and survival benefit ( P = 0.05, Mantel-Cox test) over saline.

A marginally significant standardized regression coefficient of b = .362, t (28) = 2.05, p = .05, f = .388, indicated that there was an overall trend for an increase in performance during the memory training.

There was a marginally significant PoA × VOT interaction in medial aspects of the left AC, but only when the extent threshold was reduced to an uncorrected cluster size of p < 0.05, while keeping the peak threshold at p < 0.001.

Meanwhile, the direct effect of awe on negative emotions was marginally significant ( b = −0.18, se = 0.10, t = −1.94, p = 0.05), so the mediating effect was almost complete.

However, when both PAD and NT-proBNP were considered as a categorical variable, NT-proBNP was not significantly associated with HFH (HR: 1.55, p = 0.242) while PAD was marginally significant (HR: 3.2, p = 0.05).

A marginally significant 3-way interaction ( F (1,50) = 4.0, p = 0.05) reflected presence of a Category Size × Age interaction for concrete ( F (1,50) = 8.66, p = 0.005) but not abstract items ( F (1,50) = 0.11, p = 0.74).

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.

For the hypothesized main effect of vWM on hippocampal gray matter density the analysis yielded two marginally significant clusters just above a TFCE-corrected significance threshold of p < 0.05 (left: k = 132, p = 0.05, x = −38, y = −28, z = −15, TFCE = 203.05, η 2 cluster = 0.18; right: k = 50, p = 0.07, x = 38, y = −24, z = −18, TFCE = 181.78, η 2 cluster = 0.23).

This finding should be interpreted with considerable caution for several reasons: First, the confidence interval is wide and marginally significant ( p = 0.05), making it compatible with no effect.

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).

Results also showed a marginally significant main effect of sex ( F (1,103) = 3.939, p = 0.050, partial eta squared = 0.037), with females’ rating (mean = 6.38, SD = 0.11) being higher than males’ (mean = 6.05, SD = 0.11), whereas the main effect of group was not significant ( p > 0.05).

Overall, the patterns replicated those observed for the Group effect: the Previous trial ×Partner’s choice ×Age interaction was significant in GLMM sup 1 ( b =0.02, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.036], p =0.038, see Appendix 1—table 5 ) and LMM sup 3 ( b =0.04, 95% CI = [0.031, 0.046], p<0.001, see Appendix 1—table 8 ), and marginally significant in LMM sup 1 ( b =0.0012, 95% CI = [ − 1.63 × 10 − 7 , 0.002], p=0.050, see Appendix 1—table 6 ).

Additionally, stress showed a marginally significant positive effect in one model (β = 0.109, p = 0.05).

Finally, on the subject of access to mental healthcare, with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.05), mental health caregivers (82.5 %) considered this to be a priority need more often than primary caregivers did (64.8 %).