“marginally significant”

A marginally significant correlation was observed in the inferior parietal areas (r = - 0.053, p = 0.006).

The HIT group showed a marginally significant effect (SMD = -2.14, 95% CI [-4.69, 0.41], p = 0.006, I2 = 76%), with substantial between-study variability.

Sex and age group were significant ( p < 0.001), and core grain food serves had small but significant interaction with age group ( p < 0.001) and a marginally significant interaction with sex ( p = 0.006).

2 , left panel: left amygdala, p < 0.0066, marginally significant, t (276) = −2.74; right panel: right amygdala, p < 0.0061, t (276) = −2.77).

Motor symptoms showed a marginally significant decrease (p = 0.0064): superficial (p = 0.2285, insignificant) and vibratory sensitivity (p = 0.1095, not significant).

The association for CORE_MATRISOME was found to be marginally significant (p = 0.0067 under SKAT) ( Figure 3 B).

We also found marginally significant heritability for G × E interaction in TDI ( h G×E 2 = 0.42%, P = 6.70 × 10 −3 calculated by LDSC; h G×E 2 = 0.23%, P = 1.16 × 10 −2 calculated by LDAK-SumHer).

The cortical coherence of gamma bands between the precuneus and PCC (precuneus-PCC) showed marginally significant difference ( Z = −2.42, p = 0.007, adjusted p = 0.068), suggesting a stronger functional connectivity in the Asy condition.

control resulted in a significant difference for both audio and spontaneous data for LZC, MPE and CD (all p < 0.001) Differences for MSE in spontaneous data were marginally significant ( p = 0.007).

Positive correlation with apical tolerance and strong branching response after apical damage was significant in low competition and marginally significant in high competition (low competition, r = 0.518, P = 0.007, N = 26; high competition, r = 0.359, P < 0.093, N = 23).

Discarding the eight marginally significant cases, this shows a significantly more frequent prediction of increased damage ( χ 1 2 = 7.35, p = 0.007).

Plasma TMB was also a marginally significant predictive factor in univariate analysis for OS; however, higher pTMB (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.18–0.76, p = 0.007) was associated with improved OS in the multivariate analysis.

Comparing the groups, we observe significant or marginally significant differences for the AP metabolites: C3 ( p = 0.007), properdin ( p = 0.016), FB ( p = 0.084), C5 ( p = 0.057), and FH ( p < 0.001).

Importantly, similar to the behavioral results, pairwise comparisons showed no difference between sequence and random trials in block 1 ( p = 0.53) and block 2 ( p = 0.94) but did show higher levels of caudate activation for sequence versus random trials in block 3 ( p = 0.040; marginally significant after Bonferroni correction for the four comparisons) and block 4 ( p = 0.007; full significance after Bonferroni correction).

These differences are statistically or marginally significant between the ′04-T and ′04-L groups (P = .007, unpaired t-test) and the ′04-T and ′04-N groups (P = .03, unpaired t-test) after adjustment for multiple comparisons ( Figure 2B ).

A main effect of Stereotype was found in the by-participants analysis, along with a marginally significant effect in the by-items analysis, F 1 (2,56) = 5.50, p = 0.007; F 2 (2,32) = 3.00, p = 0.064, with faster RTs to word pairs that contained a neutral role term ( M = 828 ms), than those that contained male-biased ( M = 850 ms) or female-biased terms ( M = 889 ms).

Ileum tissue showed a significantly differential increase in InsP to inositol (LMM post hoc: Control − Inositol t 227 = 5.593, P <0.001) and a marginally significant decrease in InsP to phytase (LMM post hoc : Control − Phytase 6000 FTU/kg t 227 = 3.267, P =0.007).

Differences between HOC and HHC were marginally significant at this time ( P = 0.00719), but both cornea models were significantly lower than controls ( P = 1.82 × 10 –180 for HOC and P = 2.96 × 10 –196 for HHC).

The main effect of age on pitch strength was marginally significant ( F (1, 473) = 7.24; p = 0.0074; pBf = 0.0958; η p 2 = 0.02).

However, in relatively older adults the association was marginally significant, F (1,140) = 5.019, p = 0.008, partial-eta squared = 0.067.

In EAS, the proportions of selection increased from a significant underrepresentation at the very periphery of the network (BC = 0; nominal P = 0.001, FDR corrected P = 0.007) to a marginally significant overrepresentation with high BC scores of 2,001–20,000 (nominal P = 0.008, FDR corrected P = 0.025).

A 2 (rater gender) × 2 (partner type) mixed-factors ANOVA on rater accuracy showed a significant main effect for partner type, in addition to a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.008). 2 See Table 2 for means, standard error, and two-way ANOVA statistics for the ratings from Study 3.

FAZ-P did not differ significantly between Control and DMI ( U = 1061, P = 0.211, r = 0.45), while the difference between Non-DMI and DMI was marginally significant ( U = 1428.5, P = 0.008, r = 0.12).

Furthermore, an overall analysis indicated a marginally significant association between the A1298C polymorphism and MI risk in the recessive model (OR = 1.27, 95 % CI = 1.06–1.51, P = 0.008), allelic model (OR = 1.18, 95 % CI = 1.01–1.39, P = 0.03), and CC vs .

The presence of genes that cause autosomal recessive diseases in three of the seven marginally significant regions―a highly unlikely observation ( P < 0.008 across 1000 random draws of genomic regions of equivalent size)―suggests the intriguing possibility that, if these clusters do indeed represent distinct endogamic communities, they may be the hallmark of cultural and natural selection processes related to the differential presence of deleterious genetic variants in these genes.