“marginally significant”

Finally, there was a marginally significant association between overnight sleep duration and attention ( p = 0.05).

Marginally significant evidence of interaction between occupational exposure and former smoking was also observed on FEV1/FVC ( p = 0.05).

When the multiple models were analyzed by age group, low serum creatinine levels were significantly correlated with knee OA in all age groups in men (marginally significant in the 60–69 years age group) but only in the age group of <70 years in women (Bonferroni-corrected p <0.05).

The variable for moderator/developer is marginally significant in Model 1 (p < .05) but does not remain significant in Models 2-4 when the key explanatory variables are introduced.

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).

However, when uncertainty was high (Figure 7B ), the LC lesioned model had a marginally significant effect ( p < 0.05; t -test with alpha = 0.017, Bonferroni corrected).

Results were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant between p > 0.05 and p ≤ 0.10. 3.

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).

For patients with late prophylactic cranial irradiation, the rates of brain metastasis tended to be higher in the TDRT group but marginally significant (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.99-3.31; P = .05), and the rates of brain metastasis were not significantly different among those who received early prophylactic cranial irradiation (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.49-3.99; P = .54).

Reducing Visual Information Increased Pointing Error For both younger and older adults, pointing error increased as we removed visual information, going from full, to partial, to blindfolded conditions ( Figure 8 B), although this increase was marginally significant (i.e., there was a weak effect of visual information when considering both the fake and real hand conditions together, p = 0.05).

There was also a marginally significant effect for the interaction between Hemisphere and Condition (F(4,112) = 2, 458, p = .05).

A similar trend was observed in the valley bottom residents where parasite prevalence generally declined with increasing age, however, this was marginally significant (R 2 = 0.40, p = 0.05; Figure 1 ).

This marginally significant association remained even when all other material hardship indicators are controlled for in Model 5 (b = −0.86, p < 0.05). 3.2.4.

No differences were observed in overall circulating T helper (p=0.76), T-regs (p=0.12) and T suppressor (p=0.10) absolute counts, although a small and marginally significant reduction in T-regs/T-eff count and % were observed (p=0.05 and p=0.04, respectively) ( Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 6 ).

To resolve the cTBS × Effort level × Trial interaction, we computed separate MGLMs for each effort level: For high effort, but not for medium and low effort, we observed a marginally significant negative effect of trial, β = −1.70, t (71) = 1.95, p = .05, BF 10 = 3.50, suggesting that in the control group participants were less willing to choose the effortful option with increasing time‐on‐task.

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).

The SEM with temporal variables showed marginally significant ( p = 0.05) positive dust coefficients for 6- to 23-month-old children in 1994–1998, suggesting higher dust IRs during those years.

The characteristics of the two groups were similar, with a marginally significant difference in their distribution ( P > 0.05).

There was a marginally significant effect of Group, F (1, 51) = 4.04, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.07 indicating higher proportion of congruent choices in the Deaf (54.2%) compared to normal-hearing participants (51.5%, Fig. 3A ).

Results were considered significant at p ≤ .05 and marginally significant between p > .05 and p ≤ .10. 3.

3 A), the pooled analysis for the ECOG = 0 subgroup demonstrated a marginally significant improvement in OS for the vaccines group (HR = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.53–1.00, P = 0.05), and the ECOG = 1 subgroup demonstrated significantly better OS in the vaccines group (HR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.68–0.95, P = 0.009).

Patients with an MDO had an average of 2.7 nodes positive for cancer at diagnosis compared to 2.0 for those without an MDO and this difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

We also found marginally significant interaction in the second visit [ F (1,56) = 3.11, p corrected = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.05].

When divided into three groups based on uterine size (<10 cm, 10 to <15 cm, and ≥15 cm), patients in the TLH group had larger uteri than those in the LAVH group, with a marginally significant difference ( P =0.05) ( Table 1 ). 2.

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 .