“marginally significant”

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.

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

These lncRNA and neighboring protein-coding gene pairs showed marginally significant greater correlated expression compared to randomized gene pairs using single-cell expression ( P -value = 0.008) but not when using single-nucleus expression ( P -value = 0.063).

In the path model, “Active coping” and “Avoidance coping” had significant or marginally significant associations with “exercise habits” (active: β = 0.19, p = 0.008, avoidance: β = −0.12, p = 0.088), and psychological distress (active: β = −0.25, p < 0.001, avoidance: β = 0.363, p < 0.001).

Clinically, these variants are associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; a 2023 meta-analysis of 66 studies ( n = 37,263) demonstrated that C677T carriers have a 13–20% higher odds of myocardial infarction (MI) under dominant (OR = 1.16, 95% CI:1.06–1.28, P = 0.008) and recessive (OR = 1.20, 95% CI:1.12–1.28, P < 0.001) models, with similar but marginally significant associations for A1298C (recessive OR = 1.27, 95% CI:1.06–1.51, P = 0.008), underscoring the need for genetic screening in CVD prevention [ 44 ].

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 .

Post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests using a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.008 revealed a significant difference between children’s spontaneity in the object-centred helping and social-centred comforting tasks ( z = −2.74, p = 0.006) and a marginally significant difference between the social-centred helping and social-centred comforting tasks ( z = −2.60, p = 0.009).

Among NHB participants, the interaction remained significant for episodic memory ( β = −0.092, 95% CI = [−0.142, −0.041], p < 0.001, p _FDR = 0.005) and marginally significant for executive function ( β = −0.073, 95% CI = [−0.129, −0.018], p = 0.009, p _FDR = 0.056).

Also, the effect of perceived tailoring on intentions reported as the main analysis (i.e., controlling for gender, race, political orientation, and experimental conditions; and including tailoring and injunctive norms in the same model) becomes marginally significant at p = .009 according to this new cutoff.

The most significant discrimination is that between P2a and R2a; marginally significant (p<0.009 uncorrected) were discriminations between P2a and P2b or Ss.

Coping strategies In the coping model, all but two of the coping strategies (approach and substance abuse) made an independently significantly contribution to the model, controlling for baseline stress, that is, avoidance, χ 2 = 74.54, p < .001, acceptance, χ 2 = 39.76, p < .001, close support, χ 2 = 26.18, p < .001, distant support, χ 2 = 50.30, p < .001, and self-blame χ 2 = 86.11, p < .001, although the approach strategy was marginally significant according to our criteria, χ 2 = 13.52, p = .009.

On the other hand, we found significantly negative correlation between cortical activity and job demand at ch16 (FDR corrected P < 0.00096; r = −0.412), and marginally significant correlations at ch26 (uncorrected P = 0.009; r = −0.316) and ch27 (uncorrected P = 0.012; r = −0.311).

A marginally significant relationship between prenatal PSS and BA estimates in early pregnancy was identified ( p = 0.009 ) in the full sample.

This analysis revealed significant or marginally significant effects of strategy in the left IOG (F [1, 12] = 9.8, p = 0.009) and SPL (F [1, 12] = 5.1, p = 0.05), whereas the same effect did not reach significance either in the left PMd (F [1, 12] = 0.3 p = 0.6) or in the IFG (F [1, 12] = 1.0 p = 0.3).

Comparison Between T0 and T1 in the Group of Participants with Unilateral Brain Damage and in the Group of Healthy Controls Conducted in order to compare performance at T0 and T1 in the group of participants with unilateral brain damage, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a marginally significant improvement at T1 in the wFBET (Z = −2.37, p = 0.009, FDR-adj p = 0.051, one-tailed) and in the BI (Z = −2.12, p = 0.017, FDR-adj p = 0.051, one-tailed) when controlling the FDR at 0.05 using the Benjamini–Hochberg method.

Treating TOI as a categorical variable, we found a marginally significant effect of TOI category on whether participants believed practicing skills changes a person’s brain [ F (2,190) = 4.79, p = 0.009, η 2 = 0.038] Tukey contrasts revealed a significant difference only between the incremental and the entity theorists [ t (112) = 2.77, p = 0.02].

Localization of HORMADs in pachytene spermatocytes Median HORMAD1/2 signal intensities on synapsed axes decrease slightly as cells progress from zygotene to pachytene ( Figures 5A, 5B ; Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.08 (marginally significant) for HORMAD1 and p<0.0096 for HORMAD2), while the intensity of SYCP1 signal increases during this time ( Figures 5A, 5B ; p<0.0001).

By post Hoc parametric test study, glibenclamide 5 mg/kg and fustin 100 mg/kg showed a favorable important (P < 0.001) drop in blood glucose after thirty days of therapy, while fustin 50 mg/kg was found to be marginally significant (P < 0.01) as opposed to a diabetic control group (P < 0.001). 3.3.

We found a distinct and marginally significant difference in the distribution patterns of these genotypes between the cancer and non-cancer groups ( p = 0.01).

Although a continuous form of social network embeddedness was marginally significant at thresholds of p < 0.01 and p < 0.005, strong component-level associations were mainly identified from ROI-pairs between right frontal and occipital lobes.

However, only rs10965219 showed a marginally significant genotype and gender interaction (after Bonferroni correction) (Beta rs10965219xgender = −0.23; 95% CI = −0.4 to −0.05); p = 0.01).

The main effect of genotype was marginally significant only for logical memory [F(1,846) = 6.64, P = 0.010].

Furthermore, the result of Egger’s test also revealed a marginally significant publication bias (p < 0.01) (Table 4 ).

Adjusted for gender and ACD respectively ODD, preschool behaviors explained 2.7% of the variance in ODD problems and 1.2% of the variance in ACD problems. Individual difficult behaviors Hot temper, disobedience, and bossiness were all significant predictors of ODD problems ( B s between 0.12 and 0.14, p s < .001), while the association with bullying was marginally significant ( B = 0.05, p = .01).

In addition, samples from both types of permanent grassland soil were closely related, with only one case in which a PERMANOVA test indicated a clear distinction (PT16, Additional file 29 : Table S16) and two in which the test was marginally significant ( p value = 0.01, PT05 and PT17).