“marginally significant”

For the total difficulties score, this gender difference was marginally significant ( b = -0.75 [95 % CI: -1.51; 0.01], p = 0.052).

A stratified analysis of tumor clinical stage indicated that the curative effect of CCRT+AC on patients with N 2–3 disease was marginally significant (HR=0.35, 95% CI=0.11–1.06, 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).

An analysis of MMN and LN enhancements measured 6 months later, at T2, yielded a marginally significant effect of condition in the MMN window ( F (2,32) = 3.23, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.168).

Post-hoc pairwise comparison revealed marginally significant higher ΔHbO 2 in the symptomatic group when compared to the asymptomatic group in the parietal ROI (p = 0.052; Fig. 2C ).

The interaction between Condition and Group was marginally significant, F (1, 39) = 4.00, p = .052, η p 2 = .09.

When separating the group of rehabilitated porpoises and comparing the first measurement after arrival in the facility with the last one obtained before release, marginally significant differences (p = 0.052) appear between the first value close to the range of the free-ranging animals and the last value similar to the range found in animals in human care (Figure 3 b).

However, rabies training/workshop attendance in the past year was marginally significant (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.37–1.01, p = 0.052), suggesting that those who did not attend training had higher odds of inadequate knowledge compared to those who did New guidelines knowledge classification Participants under 25 years of age had lower odds of inadequate new guidelines knowledge compared to those aged 25–30, although this association was marginally significant (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.16–1.02, p = 0.055).

2.927) was marginally significant ( P ≈ 0.052) (Table S20), whereas Mature leaf/Old leaf/Root showed the same trend but did not reach significance ( P > 0.05) (Table S20), indicating a tendency toward higher TCP expression in cultivated materials in actively growing tissues within the compiled dataset.

The main effect for time was marginally significant, F (1,8) = 7.16, p < 0.052, ηp 2 = 0.47 (see Figure 1 ), revealing an increase in non-judgment in both intervention groups.

The interaction between time and group was marginally significant for the orientation domain ( F (3.41,277.71) = 2.51, P = 0.052, η 2 = 0.028), with contrasts revealing a significant linear improvement over time ( F (2,163) = 3.24, P = 0.042), and post hoc tests revealed that differences between all three groups were significant.

The number of Shared Pleasure moments at 6 months was significantly associated with composite motors scores (estimate = 2.4; SE = 0.9; p = 0.007) and marginally significant with relation to cognitive scores (estimate = 1.9; SE = 1.0; p = 0.052) at 18 months.

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 ).

In addition, we found a marginally significant increase in support for the outgroup (unlimited vs. control, p = 0.052; unlimited vs. limited, p = 0.075) and no significant difference in support for the ingroup (unlimited vs. control, p = 0.72; unlimited vs. limited, p = 0.42).

The influence of SPL on the proportion of HBOs was marginally significant (estimate ± SE = 0.265 ± 0.137; z = 1.943; p = 0.0521; Fig. 3 ).

When patients with DSS were compared only with patients with DHF, the difference in allele frequency of rs3765524-C at PLCE1 between DSS and DHF groups was statistically significant (one-sided P = 0.0399), and the difference in allele frequency of rs3132468-C at MICB was marginally significant (one-sided P = 0.0521).

Except “place of drying washable material” that was marginally significant (p-value=0.0521), the two groups differed significantly in all other self-care variables ( Table 2 ).

The correlation of CA125 to disease recurrence was marginally significant ( p = 0.0522) without enough statistical power to make a definitive statement about it.

Between-subgroup differences were significant under the fixed-effects model ( P = 0.0201) and marginally significant under the random-effects model ( P = 0.0523) ( Figure 6C ). 3.4.5 Publication bias Publication bias for the IL-1β outcome was systematically assessed using multiple approaches.

The overall survival for S6K1 showed a marginally significant result ( p = 0.0523) with fatal outcome being most frequent in the group of patients with lower level of S6K1 expression, 64.7%, while 39.3% patients without change in expression and 23.1% of patients with higher level of expression had died in the same period of time ( Figure 3 ).

We observed a marginally significant increase in aVL ( P <0.0523) and aVF ( P <0.0607).

In season II, rain (−), temperature (−), and insolation (+) significantly correlated with CBB infestation on the plant, whereas rain (+) and humidity (−, marginally significant at P = 0.0524) significantly correlated with CBB infestation on the ground ( Table 3 ).

At the outpatient level, consumption exhibited an immediate and marginally significant increase following 2020 ( p = 0.05244), interrupting an otherwise consistent downward trend.

The association between the SERP2 gene and the 0–6 h effect-site MEC was marginally significant (adjusted p = 0.05245; Supplementary Table S5 ).

Using the Fisher’s Exact test, these proportions were determined as marginally significant ( p = 0.0525).