“marginally significant”

After 1 week, all eyes had a quiet anterior chamber and endothelial cell counts decreased by an average of 225 cells/mm 2 , which was marginally significant ( p =0.0525) when compared to other time points.

Statistical analysis suggests this relationship to be marginally significant ( p -value = 0.05258; ρ = 0.5968; Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficient = 88.701), suggesting possible seasonal variability in 25(OH)D 3 .

Lastly, the correlation between microbial communities and pathogens was marginally significant ( P = .0526, M 2 = 0.44; Fig.

typhimurium invasion assays, a marginally significant ( P = 0.0526) enhancement in the number of intracellular bacteria (reproducible in several experiments) was observed in cells transfected with Syt VII C 2 A–GFP ( Fig. 3 C).

The correlation between the gene expression for the two dataset was marginally significant (Kendall's tau b, one-sided p-value = 0.0526).

Although the total effect of PA on aggression was marginally significant ( B = 0.0643, p = 0.0526), the indirect effect through state anger was statistically significant (BootLLCI = 0.0015, BootULCI = 0.0325).

Analysis showed that female caregivers were more likely than male caregivers to seek information, although this test was marginally significant (χ 2 (1, N = 268) = 3.76 p <0.0526).

For DNMT1 , an ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of infant condition ( F (1,61) = 3.903, p = 0.0527, Cohen’s d = 0.753), however, post-hoc analyses failed to meet significance (nurturing care versus maltreatment vehicle groups, p = 0.0852).

This difference in MCP-1 mRNA production induced by am-PM 2.5 as compared to pm-PM 2.5 was marginally significant (p = 0.0527).

Here, ln hpcdd was marginally significant (p = 0.0527), but it was still in the same direction.

After adjusting for ratio at the baseline, statistical comparison (between complete and partial resections) showed a marginally significant difference between the two groups ( F 1,20 = 4.24, P = 0.0528) ( Table 2 ).

The kdr genotype results show significant deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in non-irrigated zones due to heterozygote deficit ( P < 0.01), while marginally significant heterozygote deficit was observed in the irrigated zone ( P = 0.0528).

In this sub-cohort of HDM sensitized individuals ( n = 8089, Table S1 ), oil palm sensitization was significantly associated with increased risks of AR ( p = 0.00142, OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.14–1.72) and AD ( p = 1.18 x 10 −4 , OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.22–1.87); however, its association with an increased risk of asthma was marginally significant ( p = 0.0528, OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.00–1.50, Table 2 ).

Our analysis revealed that there was a marginally significant statistical difference in vaginitis types among different age groups ( P = 0.0529) (Table 2 ).

In the analysis, according to the use of the LSOM technique, the LSOM group showed a shorter OT than the no-LSOM group, with a marginally significant difference (137.8 ± 61.15 min vs. 148.2 ± 52.67 min, p = 0.0529) (table not shown).

2E ). Trait variation in natural field populations The interaction between population and elevation was significant for internode length and shoot length ( Table 3 ) and marginally significant for leaf dry mass ( P = 0.053), indicating that the magnitude of response to elevation in these traits varies by population.

The first model (F(2, 485) = 67.662, p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.21) showed a marginally significant association between the PwP-pat GBA1 group and high MDS-UPDRS-IV values (β = 1.13; 95% CI: −0.01–2.28 p = 0.053).

Fish oil supplement use had a marginally significant association with the risk of dementia after further adjustment for other supplements such as vitamins and minerals ( P = 0.053).

A strong association between intracranial bleeding (comprising the diagnosis of spontaneous hemorrhage and vascular pathology) and the risk of obstruction was evidenced in the multivariable analysis, with an OR of 9.14, even though differences were marginally significant ( p =0.053).

We noted that the ‘communion’ measure is marginally significant (p = 0.053) and the ‘NFS: Past’ measure was not statistically significant.

Pairwise comparisons revealed the largest significant differences between AF—AL and AF—AP ( p = 0.009 for both), followed by AA—AF ( p = 0.019) and AA—AP ( p = 0.040); a marginally significant difference between AA—AL ( p = 0.053); and a close association between AL and AP ( p = 0.068); however, after correction for multiple sampling, differences were significant only for the AF—AL and AF—AP comparisons.

However, we do see marginally significant preplay of the stem during REST1, an effect consistent with de novo preplay (area under the curve analysis of stem preplay vs shuffle in REST1: p = 0.053).

The number of residents who were able to publish among the rotators was marginally significant than the other group (p = 0.053).

Co-variation of group-differences in the two measurements was also significant for the sibling-patient comparison ( r = −0.54, p < .001), and marginally significant for the control-sibling comparison ( r = −0.26, p = .053).

However, the gender-stratified analyses revealed marginally significant effects in heterozygote model analyses in women ( P = 0.053).