“marginally significant”

Cases with high miR-150-5p expression were also found to have more frequent intraperitoneal recurrence than those with non-high miR-150-5p expression, with the difference being marginally significant (20.5% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.052).

In the first model, empathy was a marginally significant predictor of everyday creativity ( p = .052, β = 0.19, adjusted R 2 = .03).

While more passive use was unrelated to self-reported nonverbal decoding skill, gender remained a marginally significant positive predictor (β std = 0.10, p = 0.052) indicating that females reported being more skilled nonverbal decoders than males.

We found no significant differences between the two groups on any of these measures (all p s > 0.25), except for a marginally significant difference in visual ANS RT ( p = 0.052), which was due to faster RTs in the ANS training group compared to the PA training group.

The average initial fixation position was closer to the beginning of the word and further from the word center, although this result was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

The difference between 0.32 μM and 0.54 μM was marginally significant ( P = 0.052), suggesting a potential threshold effect near 0.5 μM.

Human- and membrane-selected populations did not differ in their attraction to worn socks (GLM: F 1,4 = 1.887, P = 0.241; Fig 6C ), However, more membrane-selected females were attracted to human hands than human-selected females (F 1,4 = 14.235, P = 0.020), and there was also a marginally significant difference for attraction to heat packs (F 1,4 = 7.127, P = 0.052).

Treatment effects also varied significantly by newborn sex for newborn weight ( p = 0.028) with marginally significant results for weight to length ratio-for-age z -score ( p = 0.052) and length-for-age z -score ( p = 0.071).

For the group aged ≥80 yr at death, the increase in the CPP of LPC from 4.8% (95% CI 0–10%) in 1962–1976 to 15% (95% CI 9.7–20%) in 2007–2020) was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

Both of the subgroups with 3 ~ 4 risk alleles and 5 ~ 6 risk alleles showed marginally significant or significant associations with increased KD risk (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.00–1.74, P = 0.052; OR = 2.93, 95% CI = 1.66–5.17, P < 0.001), and the Cochran-Armitage trend test indicated a significant dose effect with the ORs being increased with increasing numbers of risk alleles ( P trend < 0.001, Table 3 ).

Further, the positive association between onset age of height spurt and FSH was marginally significant ( P = 0.052), after adjusting for testicular volume.

In a case-only analysis a marginally significant difference was detected between males and females overall (p = 0.0520) and in GBM (p = 0.0428) (Supplemental Table 1 ).

Specifically, there was a marginally significant decrease in we-words from 3 to 2 weeks before the NSSI event ( M decrease = −0.16, SE = 0.08, t = −1.96, p = 0.052), which stayed at a similar frequency level in the week immediately preceding the event.

KEGG orthologs for methane metabolism were also reduced by all treatments but this effect only was marginally significant in BD samples (β = 0.158, p = 0.052). 3.2.

The strength of association between obesity and multiple sex partners, which was marginally significant (OR = 1.17, P = 0.052) in Table 2 , decreased and was no longer significant (OR = 1.02, P = 0.81). 4.

In the final model, partial mediation was shown (path b and c), (F(2,40)=12.24, p<0.001), where the model accounted for 38% of the percent weight loss, and group posts became a marginally significant predictor of percent weight loss (β=1.59, p=0.052), but meals logged remained significant (β=0.407, p=0.001).

However, for “Frequently,” the relationship is marginally significant (p-value = 0.052), while “Occasionally,” “Rarely,” and “Never” show no significant relationship with customer loyalty.

The MNND Lactuca distance showed a marginally significant effect on the growth and recruitment of Lactuca (p = 0,052 and 0.085, respectively; see Table 2 ).

Analysis focusing on brain regions suggested that Glx levels decreased in the frontal cortex (Hedge's g = −0.226, p = 0.025), and the reduction of Glu levels in patients with affective disorders in the frontal cortex is marginally significant (Hedge's g = −0.172, p = 0.052).

Finally, pregnancy was a marginally significant predictor suggesting that those with a history of pregnancy were 59% less likely to report multimethod use ( P = .052).

Notably, however, sex was the only other covariate significantly associated with risk aversion (estimate = -1.49, SE = 0.39, p < 0.001), although income had a marginally significant inverse relationship with risk aversion (p = 0.052).

There are marginally significant differences in the median density of marks between the recipient and the handle segments, for the back (Mann−Whitney U = 14, exact p = 0.052) but not for the front side (Mann−Whitney U = 26, exact p = 0.361), with the recipient having the higher average density of marks on both sides of the spoon. 2) The scatterplot of mark densities of merged and unmerged quadrants (the second method of building observation units) (Plot B in Fig 12 ) suggests that there is no correlation between the front and the back mark density (r = -0.02, p = 0.454, N = 35).

The interaction between load and language was marginally significant ( F (2, 96) = 3.06, p = .052, η 2 p = .06), with higher accuracy in high load for L1 compared to L2 ( p < .05).

Recruitment was higher in the MSt compared with both the HC and the NC (F (2,20) = 36.95, p < 0.0001), with marginally significant group x region interaction (F (2,20) = 3.43, p = 0.052; “group” refers to Control/ALAN groups, “region” refers to MSt/HC/NC).

The top–down attention effect is marginally significant at the palm location only for the right-handers without significant hand proximity attention [ F (1,7) = 2.34, P = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 1.53].