“marginally significant”

The weighted model, however, indicated a small, marginally significant negative effect (mean difference −0.01 (per 100 patients) CI: −0.01 to 0.00, p = 0.053), suggesting that larger clinics might have had slightly lower reach in the weighted model (adjusting rates for clinic size).

The lag coefficients for one to three months were negative and statistically insignificant, except for the second-month lag, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.053), suggesting a weak delayed effect of temperature on stillbirth outcomes.

The mean MUAC was 24.8 cm (SD = 2.64) and the proportion of participants with poor nutritional status was higher among those with inadequate dietary diversity (25.7% vs 19.1%), which was a marginally significant ( p = 0.053) difference ( Table 3 ).

Indeed, in this multiple regression, the only remaining significant predictor of hyper-partisan news sharing besides vaccine hesitancy was age, β = 0.21, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.29], P < 0.001, replicating prior work about age and fake news sharing ( 27 ), and affective polarization was a marginally significant predictor, β = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.16], P = 0.053 (all other P s > 0.184).

The second lowest PLR group (83.1 ≤ PLR < 126.7) demonstrated lower survival compared with the highest group, although marginally significant ( p =0.053).

Exploratory analyses also found marginally significant pairwise group differences for CS+ nr Block 1 (Z = -1.93 , p = .053 ) and CS- Block 1 (Z = -1.91 , p = .056 ).

The difference in cancer-specific deaths between cancer survivors and matched non-cancer individuals was statistically significant ( p < 0.001), while the difference in CVD-specific deaths was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

The results showed marginally significant difference for deck D ( t = 1.98, p = 0.053), and no significance for deck A ( t = −0.61, p = 0.55).

Effects of the narrative intervention Effects of the narrative intervention compared to pre-test scores The results of the paired samples t -test comparing pre-test scores and post-test scores in condition A show that there was a marginally significant difference between pre-test scores and post-test scores safer sex communication intentions with a sexual partner, t (70) = −1.97, p = .053, and a significant difference between pre-test scores and post-test scores for safer sex communication intentions with friends, t (71) = −3.01, p < .01.

The separate ANOVA for humans only found a marginally significant effect of sound type ( F (2,42) = 3.157, p = 0.053) ( η 2 = 0.131), revealing that humans performed slightly higher on the extreme and within-category intermediate sounds than on the trained sounds.

However, a four-class model yielded a marginally significant LMR-LRT value, suggesting that a four-class model may fit the data better than the three-class model ( p = .053).

KPS was also significantly associated with overall survival ( p = 0.010) and depth of response was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

The interaction was marginally significant for the outcome suicidality (F 2,80 =3.06, P =0.053).

For ‘target absent’ displays, a marginally significant interaction between set size and group was found ( F (4.67,179.68) = 2.82, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.056).

In terms of an interaction effect, one combination of educational and income levels was marginally significant relative to the reference combination (P=0.053).

the average numbers of nausea in ginger using patients was lower than placebo group two, four and six hours after surgery but this difference was marginally significant (P = 0.053) 2 hours after surgery ( Table 2 ).

For categories of combined plasma Aβ, it showed that the significant associations observed previously remained marginally significant only in the non-treated-HP group (OR = 2.307 [95% CI, 0.991–5.374], P = 0.053, Supplementary Table S3 ) and not in the treated-HP group (OR = 2.607 [95% CI, 0.417–10.237], P = 0.374, Supplementary Table S3 ).

However, itemized analysis revealed that THC augmentation specifically improved gastrointestinal symptoms (U = 16.00, p = 0.025) compared to ESC monotherapy, while showing marginally significant lesser improvement in psychomotor agitation (p = 0.053).

The MSMM without predicted baseline, while marginally significant, failed to detect a statistically significant treatment effect and is likely underpowered (p = 0.053).

The 5-year RFS rate was 64% in the observation group and 76% in the chemotherapy group, which was a marginally significant difference (p=0.053).

65.0 ± 5.0% without), and plant species richness had a marginally significant effect (χ 2 = 3.73, p = .053).

37.5%); the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.053).

Of these, lag5 was the most significant ( p = 0.003); lag3 and lag4 were marginally significant ( p = 0.053; p = 0.081).

For older men, only age ( p = 0.001) and race ( p = 0.002) were significantly associated with PSA, while the association between BMI status to PSA was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

Education was marginally significant (F=2.94, df=2/16330, p=0.053, η 2 <0.001).