“marginally significant”

Among females, the model accounted for 7% of the variance in depressive symptoms; however, only screen-based sedentary behavior was the marginally significant predictor (β = 0.14, p = 0.05).

Over the same period, increased odds of always having a new syringe for injection was marginally significant (aOR 1.1; p = 0.05, 95% CI 1.0–1.2) (data not shown).

Additional exploration for effect measure modification by marital status showed a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.05).

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

Of 39 patients with a surgery background, 30 showed edema, 13 (33%) in a period greater than the median and 17 (43%) lower than the median, and this comparison was not different from the statistical viewpoint (χ 2 = 0.41; P = 0.75); notwithstanding, if we consider the average of this interval (32.4 months), the difference is marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

Location was marginally significant in the meta-analysis at p = 0.05, probably because the effect was only based on the two networks of school 1.

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 %).

The interaction term was marginally significant t (1) = 1.94, p = .05, suggesting the difference in abstraction between cohorts is greater at higher levels of the intercept, although this effect was not predicted and should be interpreted accordingly.

One may argue a marginally significant survival improvement ( P = 0.05) amounted to a remarkable 11-month prolongation.

The likelihood of good knowledge was high among the residents of Lunglei Town [OR: 2.646; marginally significant], while the residents of Phairuangkai were ~ 69% less likely to have good knowledge [OR: 0.309, p < 0.05] (Table 3 ).

In the model including all men regardless of diabetes status, the association between testosterone and AMI was marginally significant in the age-adjusted analysis (HR = 0.950 95%CI 0.90–1.00, p = 0.050).

This association remained marginally significant in Model 3 (β = 0.013; 95% CI: 0.000–0.026; p = 0.050).

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).

However, for percentages, the association between symptoms and reduced stereoacuity was marginally significant ( 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.

Thus the effect of temperature on O phase volume, though marginally significant by ANOVA (F [2, 29] = 3.48; P < 0.05), was not directional, reaching a peak value at the intermediate temperature of 25°C.

In the CD8 + population, only when inactivated FeHV-1 was presented to monocytes, marginally significant proliferation compared to mock infection ( P < 0.05) was observed.

Changes in Depressive Symptoms The ANOVA testing for changes in depressive symptoms demonstrated a marginally significant main effect of time-by-group interaction (F(1, 79) = 3.82, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.05), indicating a marginally significant difference between the groups post-intervention.

Marginally significant differences were found between younger participants and middle age groups [two-sample t-test, t (128) = 1.94, p = 0.05] [Fig. 4(B) ]; while no significant difference were observed between young and old groups [ t (58) = 1.51, p = 0.13] and middle and older age groups [ t (88) = 0.50, p = 0.62].

Six OTUs had an abundance of more than 2% of the total sequences, and four of these (OTU00026, OTU00034, OTU00037, and OTU00046, all classified as Ascomycota) showed a significant or marginally significant difference between the Early Stage and the Late Stage (p ≤ 0.05).

Treatment effects were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.10 ≤ P ≥ 0.05.

For this study, statistical significance was indicated by p ‐values <0.05, and marginally significant results have p ‐values >0.05 but <0.10.

All three messenger conditions produced statistically significant or marginally significant negative effects: President Tokayev ( β = − 0 . 074 , p < . 05 ), the Grand Mufti of Kazakhstan ( β = − 0 . 066 , p < . 05 ), and the Chief Sanitary Doctor ( β = − 0 . 063 , p < . 10 , where marginal significance indicates p-values between .05 and .10).

One study 29 did not provide ORs but reported significant association between any fall and poor STS (p=0.01) and 6 min walk distance (6MWD) tests (p<10 -2 ), with the timed-up-and-go test (TUGT) being marginally significant (p=0.05).

Stratified analysis showed a marginally significant relationship between DASH dietary patterns and risk of CKD in prospective cohort studies (Pooled risk estimate: 0.79, 95% CI 0.61–1.01; p = 0.05), and no significant association in cross-sectional studies.