“marginally significant”

For State Test Pass Rate , the difference in correlations was marginally significant ( n s = 191, z = -1.95, p = .05).

Statistical significance was evaluated with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 ( p ≥ 0.05 and < 0.10 were considered marginally significant).

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).

There was a marginally significant difference between groups for CELF core language ( p = .050), with the CH group performing on average 14 points (i.e. ~ 1 SD) below controls on this measure (see also Supplementary Table 1 ).

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.

Adding best corrected visual acuity (measured in logMAR (negative decadic logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution)) to the model showed a marginally significant association with self-rated depression scores ( P = 0.05; beta: 0.04; B: 1.56; 95%CI: -0.01, 3.13).

However, a marginally significant association (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00-1.55, p = 0.05) was found with the urinary concentration of DMAs III .

All means are presented ± 1 SE and considered marginally significant if 0.10 < P > 0.05, and significant at P ≤ 0.05.

The results from the statistical analyses showed that although the correlation between tannin contents in the total solids and Stiasny values was marginally significant at p = 0.05, the Stiasny values were not able to be used to predict tannin contents for the treatment of leather [ 26 ]. 3.1.4.

There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between total brain volume (%ICV) and EZ-RPE volume in PD group (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.482, P = .04), normal cognition control group (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.514, P < .01) and a marginally significant moderate positive correlation in AD dementia group (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.526, P = .05) ( Fig 3 ).

It revealed a main effect of Hemisphere [ F 1 , 41 = 9.24, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.20], no effect of Condition [ F 2 , 82 = 0.82, p = 0.445, η 2 = 0.02] and a marginally significant interaction between these two factors [ F 2 , 82 = 3.08, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.07].

While we did not observe significant interactions with genotype group within the latter latency window (Congruency×Genotype: p>.05, Congruency×Genotype×Site: p>.05), we did observe a (marginally significant) Congruency×Genotype interaction in the earlier (600 and 800 ms) time window (F(1,47) = 4.03, MSe = 46.38, p = .05; Congruency×Genotype×Site: p>.05).

However, a marginally significant difference was detected in nitrate and ammonium levels between treatments (PERMANOVA, p < 0.05), with Treatment 1 exhibiting the lowest observed concentrations of these compounds.

In contrast, a study conducted on breast cancer reported a marginally significant reduction ( p = 0.05) in FTO gene expression in the breast tissue of patients with the AA homozygous genotype [ 54 ].

The combination of the two samples, authorized by the absence of any significant clinical difference between them, showed a marginally significant association of the C allele (AFBAC, RA index cases 64.8% versus controls 58.2%, P = 0.05; TDT, 56.1% of transmission, P = 0.09) and a significant excess of the C-allele-containing genotype in RA index cases compared with controls (173 RA index cases versus 157 controls, P = 0.02).

Microbial beta diversity analysis showed a marginally significant difference in overall community composition across groups (R 2 = 0.033, p = 0.05).

When individuals with psychiatric CNVs were removed, these findings became marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

Results were considered significant if P ≤ 0.05 and were considered marginally significant if P > 0.05 and P ≤ 0.10.

The Shannon index was also higher in LFCR pigs, though the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Table 2 ).

The above-mentioned study by Reiter and colleagues, which suggested greater heterogeneity in patients with PSC compared with viral hepatitis, also reported a marginally significant correlation between CoV and Mayo risk score ( r = − 0.45; p = 0.05).

Conversely, the relationship between the diterpenes and BAI was marginally significant during the 10-year pre-outbreak period in the 2015 outbreak ( p = 0.05; Figure 4 and Table S4 ).

The observed connection is marginally significant (Beta = 0.15, p = 0.05), suggesting that cultural factors may play a role in how a person learns to write.

Networks with marginally significant FDR corrected p ‐values = .05–.06) are also reported here along with the corresponding significant uncorrected p ‐values.

The above pattern of results was evident in the significant ( F 1 ) and marginally significant ( F 2 ) Consistency × Location × Group interaction ( F (1, 55) = 4.51, p < .05, η p 2 = .08; F 2 (1, 2) = 12.99, p < .1, η p 2 = .87).

PRP at 12 weeks showed a trend toward optimal results (SMD = 0.66, 95% CI: -0.38 to 1.69, p = 0.21), and the improvement at 6 months was marginally significant (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.70, p = 0.05).