The PD-L1 expression level had no significant correlation with sex and age but had a significant correlation with TNM stage and pathological differentiation no matter in whole tumor tissues or TN (P<0.05), with a marginally significant association with survival status in TN (P=0.056) and significantly associated with pathological differentiation in TS ( Fig. 3A-C ).
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
Though groups were relatively small in other studies, treatment responders showed significant rTMS-associated increases in left DLPFC tCho post treatment in one study ( p = .028, n = 6) ( Luborzewski et al., 2007 ) and a marginally significant increase of Cho/Cr in the left PFC in another study ( p = .056, n = 12 ( Zheng et al., 2010 ).
Among the 20 comparisons made, significant differences in BMD were observed between the Beta‐adrenergic Blockers and four drug categories ( Figure 7 ), while the difference between the Antiplatelet Drugs and Beta‐adrenergic Blockers was marginally significant (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 1–1.32, P ‐value = 0.056).
The difference in the Categories Completed between the 2 groups was marginally significant ( p = 0.056).
The improvement in red and processed meat was stronger among participants with household support ON, at a marginally significant level, than those with household support OFF ( P = .056, η 2 = .07).
The difference in d′ among the five groups who had to retain memory for some duration (12 hours or more) was marginally significant ( F (4,75) = 2.42, MS e = 0.242, p = 0.056), with the largest pairwise difference in d′ between the PM–AM and PM–PM groups ( Fig. 5A ).
The β LDL/HDL had the biggest values in the non-traditional lipid variables and there was a marginally significant difference between β LDL/HDL and β LDL ( P = 0.056).
Marginally significant effects of Time × Group were noted for log WMFT–Time at T8 (F = 2.995, df = 2, p = 0.056) and T10 (F = 2.595, df = 3, p = 0.056), and the mean decreases over the entire course of the study in the EE and Exo groups were 0.149 (SE: 0.026) and 0.067 (SE: 0.026), respectively.
A marginally significant difference was observed between the infant and younger-adult faces: t (20) = 2.03, p <0.056, indicating more attraction towards the relevant age categories when categorizing infant compared to adult faces ( Figures 2 & 3 ).
Probably the only noteworthy outcomes were the marginally significant main effect of eligibility F (1, 15)=4.29, p =.056, η p 2 =.222, indicating that there was a trend towards fewer errors for 50% eligibility than for 100% (.077 vs. .093), and the two-way interaction between eligibility and target F (1, 15)=5.98, p =.027, η p 2 =.285, which indicates that this trend was pronounced only for present trials (50% eligibility .146; 100% eligibility .175).
Moreover, the decrease of total testosterone in the synbiotic group was marginally significant compared to the control group (−3.38±20.20 vs. +2.33±12.79, P =0.056).
We only found a marginally significant effect of stimulation condition [ F (1,394) = 3.66, p = 0.056] and a significant effect of sleep stage [ F (5,394) = 1506.97, p < 2e-16].
The interaction effect between input mode and text difficulty was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.81, p = 0.056, indicating that in general, insertions made by the dictation group were more sensitive to text difficulty than those made by the typing group. 4.3.2.
However, CES ( p = 0.020) and race ( p = 0.001) were found to be predictors of PTSD status, with sex being a marginally significant predictor ( p = 0.056).
In a third sensitivity analysis using a higher threshold to define high chronic stress in a subset of participants (n=1423), chronic stress was associated with incident hypertension after adjustment for demographics, hypertension risk factors, and baseline stress in model 3 ( P =0.029), but became marginally significant after adjustment for behavioral factors in model 4 ( P =0.056; Table S3 ).
Pairwise comparisons showed that the Phase*Group effect was driven by a marginally significant difference between groups in fear acquisition, F 1, 218 = 3.68, p = .056, ηp 2 = 0.01.
As hypothesized, wave 1 self-regulation had a significant negative impact on inattentive driving ( β = −.145, p = .002) but a non-significant negative impact on reckless driving ( β = −.052, p = .163) and the difference in effects was marginally significant (χ 2 (1) = 3.64, N = 1630, p = .056).
A marginally significant interaction was found between risk amount and group (F(1, 40) = 3.875, p = 0.056, partial η2 = 0.982).
The FRN for loss ( M = 5.86, SE = 1.18 μV) was smaller than that for gain ( M = 12.89, SE = 1.21 μV) in HN, F (1,40) = 83.90, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.68, whereas this difference ( M loss = 10.51, SE = 1.18 μV; M gain = 12.01, SE = 1.21 μV) was marginally significant in LN, F (1,40) = 3.87, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.09.
The interaction was marginally significant for utilitarian motives, F 1,112 = 3.74, p = .056, η 2 = .03, showing that participants opted for more utilitarian punishment towards a typical versus atypical ingroup offender.
As for the OC patients, PaCO 2 measurements 6 and 24 h postoperatively displayed marginally significant increase (P = 0.056) and decrease (P = 0.044) respectively, compared to laparoscopic group [ 25 ].
The correlation with use of sleep medication was small and marginally significant ( r = 0.094, p = 0.056).
alien species was not significantly different (t ≤ 1.2, p > 0.05, in 8 sites), and only in one site (Playa Maya), alien species showed a marginally significant higher normalized degree (t 270 = 1.95, p = 0.056).
Soil pH was significantly higher in prairie cores than in forest (Table 3 ), and there was a marginally significant trend for forest soils to have higher nitrate concentrations than core ( p = 0.056) and shrub-encroached portions ( p = 0.083) of prairies (Table 3 ).
Univariate analyses revealed that for Frequency of Experience there was a significant effect on Eudemonia F (2,81) = 5.51, p = .006, η 2 = .12, and a marginally significant effect on Apprehension F (2,81) = 2.98, p = .056, η 2 = .07.