“marginally significant”

In a Cox proportional regression model, PS, intensity of treatment and p27 retained statistical significance (HR = 2.363, 95% CI = 0.999–5.589, p = 0.050; HR = 2.550, 95% CI = 1.105–5.886, p = 0.028; HR = 3.743, 95% CI =1.064–13.169, p = 0.040, respectively) while cyclin D1 was marginally significant (HR = 1.070, 95% CI = 1.000–1.145, p = 0.051).

Post hoc Tukey tests revealed significant (or marginally significant) differences between no reward and $5 reward ( p = 0.051), between no reward and $10 ( p = 0.020), and between $5 and $10 ( p = 0.008).

This analysis revealed essentially the same pattern of effects as the RT ANOVA: a significant validity effect, F (2, 23) = 34.130, p < .001, η p 2 = .597, and a marginally significant interaction, F (2, 46) = 3.172, p = .051, η p 2 = .121.

The Distractor Type X Lag interaction was marginally significant, F (2,39) = 3.095, p = .051, η p 2 = 0.074.

The No ACL group had marginally significant lower VAS than the ACL first patients ( P = 0.051) [ Table 3 ].

The case-mix index coefficient was positive and marginally significant ( p = 0.051).

Additionally, there was a significant or marginally significant interaction between endophytes and aphids on emissions of 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one ( P = 0.051), ( Z )-3-hexen-1-ol ( P = 0.070), ( Z )-3-hexen-1-ol acetate ( P = 0.079) and 1-octen-3-ol ( P = 0.002), with infested E+ plants emitting less of these compounds than plants in any other treatment.

For Self-judgment the interaction was marginally significant: F(1, 21) = 4.28, p = .051, η 2 p = 0.17 and the main effect of Time, F(1, 21) = 5.117, p = .034, η 2 p = 0.196, was significant.

In an analogous way, those who had low alcohol consumption were 59% (p<0.01) more likely to report bad/very bad health, whereas for those with high alcohol consumption, reporting bad/very bad health was marginally significant (OR=2.05; p=0.051).

The interaction between cognitive task and AGE was marginally significant ( F (1, 26) = 4.19, p = 0.051).

A negatively correlation was observed with HDL, although this was marginally significant ( p = 0.051) ( Table 2 ).

Also a marginally significant Group × Lag interaction was found, F (3, 78) = 2.71, MSE = 51.77, p = .051, η 2 p = .09, such that particularly at lags 2 and 3, non-blinkers seemed to show fewer order reversals than blinkers did.

Moreover, after applying the modified Bonferroni’s method to adjust possible errors during multiple comparison, the correlations of DMO levels to glucose (adjusted p = 0.047), or DMO C/D ratios to insulin (adjusted p = 0.049) remain significant statistically, but the correlation between levels of DMO and homocysteine became marginally significant (adjusted p = 0.051).

Moreover, 1-arachidonoyl-GPC has a marginally significant protective effect ( P = .051), potentially through the cyclooxygenase pathway, which generates prostaglandins to balance inflammatory responses.

Furthermore, correlation analysis revealed a marginally significant negative correlation between SES scores and BDI scores ( r = −0.202, p = 0.051) in MDD patients, but not in HCs ( r = 0.091, p = 0.377), suggesting an association between depressive symptoms and self-esteem in MDD.

When grouping populations by year, a slight but marginally significant year effect was also observed (0.16% variance, P = 0.051) ( Table 3 ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between the Badness IAT and the Officers Subscale (B = 0.06, p =.051).

A one-way ANOVA of the percent of respondents with children under 18 was marginally significant ( p = .051), with “little bit of everything” and “low demand” caregivers containing a higher percent of caregivers with children under age 18 compared to “the managers” and “hands-on” caregivers.

The same ANOVA performed on the Effector Priming Task revealed a marginally significant effect of Age Group F (1,83) = 3.9, P = 0.051) but the main effect of Prime Group and the Prime x Age Group interaction was not significant (both F (1,83) < 1).

The increase was marginally significant ( P < .051). 3.2.

The clr of AHQ/VRQ was marginally significant ( P = 0.051) and was left in the model.

Within the dorsal striatum, predictions based on the pattern of activity in the caudate nucleus ( r = 0.77, p = 1.3·10−7) were more accurate than those based on activity in the putamen ( r = 0.47, p = 0.0046; Figure 4 ), with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.051).

In our study, which was conducted over a period of 30 months, we found an overall recurrence rate of 16.4%, with a marginally significant difference (p-value = 0.051) between the counseled (12.3%) and the non counseled groups (28.6%).

Age stratification revealed younger-old (65–75) achieved 24% improvement (d = 1.38), middle-old (76–85) achieved 19% improvement (d = 1.12), and oldest-old (86+) achieved 14% improvement (d = 0.89), with age-by-time interaction marginally significant (F(2,297) = 3.02, p = 0.051) suggesting slightly attenuated but still substantial effects in oldest users.

When the Korean-accented condition served as the reference condition, the model revealed a marginally significant main effect of language ( Estimate = 0.005, SE = 0.003, p = 0.051).