“marginally significant”

Help-seeking behavior was not significantly associated with incident disability, but some marginally significant trend of relationship could be observed; for example, in bodily pain (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 0.99 to 4.55; p = 0.052).

Female+Bi-sexual) and variation in group size (P = 0.022, Table 2 ), and a marginally significant interaction for variation in sex ratio (P = 0.052, Table 2 ).

TIV was identified significantly more frequently in MTM-HCC by R2 ( p = 0.001), whereas it was marginally significant for R1 and R3 ( p = 0.052).

One-way ANOVA revealed a marginally significant difference in the protein expression of TrkB (F (2, 13) = 3.734, p = 0.052) and significant difference in pTrkB level (F (2, 11) = 4.811, p = 0.032).

However, marginally significant interactions among sociality, valence and SAS/SDS were also found (sociality × valence × SAS, F (1,43) = 3.998, P = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.085; sociality × valence × SDS, F (1,43) = 3.821, P = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.082), which violated the assumption of ANCOVA that covariates should not influence the effect of interest ( Miller and Chapman, 2001 ).

For the mVLT, significant Group × Timepoint × Age interactions were observed for Aggregate Mean [ B = −0.29; SE ( B ) = 0.14; p = .049] and First Administration [ B = −0.76; SE ( B ) = 0.32; p = .023], with a similar marginally significant trend observed for Best Score [ B = −0.40; SE ( B ) = 0.20; p = .052].

SCH had a marginally significant effect on OT ( β = 0.08, p = 0.052) ( Table 2 ).

The cup-to-disc ratio exhibited a marginally significant difference, with p = 0.052, suggesting a potential difference that approaches statistical significance.

For resistant colonies, colony area had a marginally significant positive correlation with relative fecundity (r 2 = 0.18, p = 0.052).

Age at PA diagnosis was a marginally significant risk factor ( p = 0.052) that could have reached significance with a larger sample size.

In step 3, the relationship between the chronic illnesses and the willingness to accept the vaccine was marginally significant (χ 2 [1] = 3.65, P = .052).

The difference between the base group and the negative reinforcement group in the expected condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

Finally, there was a marginally significant group × time interaction for the TEIQue, t = 1.95 , p = 0.052 , f 2 = 0.01, but these scores on the TEIQue did not significantly differ from baseline at Time 3, t = 1.57, p = 0.123, d = 0.21.

However, the partial correlation analysis results show that when ΔT was held as the control factor (constant), ΔSM had a marginally significant ( P = 0.052) relation with ΔNPP.

A marginally significant association indicating a two-fold lower odds of test positivity was noted among Asian vs White patients (p = 0.052, OR 0.513, 95% CI 0.262-1.004); however, race was otherwise not noted to be predictive of test positivity.

Step 2 led to a marginally significant increase in the variance explained, ΔF (1, 72) = 3.90, p = 0.052.

The difference between the depression and HV groups was significant in the number of semantic clusters ( p = 0.04) and marginally significant in the number of phonemic clusters ( p = 0.052) during the category fluency task.

In this study, the association between a BMI ≥24 kg/m 2 and the risk of diabetes was marginally significant (P=0.052).

Effects of vitamin K 2 on atherogenic status Compared to the baseline, a marginally significant reduction was observed in the METS-IR in the vitamin K2 group (mean change from baseline: − 0.80 ± 2.24; p = 0.052).

Offer level The expected interaction between exemplar behavior and exemplar emotion was marginally significant, p = .052.

The IP group did not improve significantly pre-to posttreatment ( P =0.337), but pretreatment to follow-up, the improvement was marginally significant ( P =0.052).

As shown in Table 3 , Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary Table 4 , the ACME of IL-8 was statistically significant for PFS ( p =0.036) and was marginally significant for OS ( p =0.052).

Additionally, the interaction effect was marginally significant, F (2,33) = 3.25, p = .052, η 2 = .04, and BF 10 = 1.50, providing anecdotal evidence supporting H1 (alternative hypothesis H1: significant interaction effect).

Further simple effect tests revealed significant differences in the grouping factors in Class 1 ( t (55) = 2.32, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.67), Class 3 ( t (55) = 2.55, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.85), Class 4 ( t (55) = 3.10, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and CS + ( t (55) = 2.72, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.26), marginally significant differences in Class 2 ( t (55) = 1.99, p = 0.052, Cohen’s d = 0.61), and no significant differences in CS- ( t (55) = 1.53, p > 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.52).

For the Non-Hispanic White model, number of comorbidities is marginally significant (p=0.052).