“marginally significant”

Mothers' lower FES Cohesion score also predicted Internalising ( P =0.01) and Externalising ( P =0.001) problems and was marginally significant for Total Problems ( P =0.02).

In addition, the ADJ-L segmentation pipeline presented higher DSC than ADJ-G ( p = 0.0034), NORM-G ( p < 0.001) and NORM-L ( p = 0.02 marginally significant) as shown in Figure 5 .

Notwithstanding, higher anti-P7 antibody absorbances correlated with higher disease indexes and could be a marker of disease activity, although the correlation was marginally significant (Spearman’s rank test, p<0.02, Fig 8 ).

The correlation between adolescents’ negative metacognitive beliefs and parental involvement was marginally significant ( r = 0.26, p = 0.02) when Bonferroni corrections of the alpha level were considered.

For AP-Phe-Az and AP-Prop-Tyr, the corresponding theoretical AP proportions tended to be slightly increased, which was found to be marginally significant ( p = 0.02–0.03).

Significant or marginally significant associations were observed at the marker rs11629841 with children's orthographic judgments at ages 7 and 8 years (all P values<0.020).

Another marginally significant gene by treatment interaction for SBP response was observed for F7 rs762637 when comparing lisinopril to chlorthalidone (P=0.02).

To test for OXT administration effects on ratings, pairwise comparisons showed a marginally significant effect for ratings of neutral images ( Z = −2.32, p = .02), which did not survive the threshold of .009, with lower ratings after OXT ( M = 1.003, SD = 0.90) compared to placebo ( M = 1.25, SD = 0.88).

A marginally significant difference in median oxygen flow rate before bronchoscopy was noted between the Jackson group and the conventional group ( P = .02).

The rs6950765 × age interaction was marginally significant in both the left and right hemispheres (left side: F = 4.05, p = 0.020; right side: F = 0.065, p = 0.033).

The DIFFTEST also showed that these improvements were marginally significant ( p = 0.02).

Time was found marginally significant, where T2 score ( M = 3.77, SE = 0.05) was slightly lower than baseline ( M = 3.89, SE = 0.04; p = 0.02) and T1 ( M = 3.91, SE = 0.05; p = 0.001).

The pooled HR is 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98), indicating a marginally significant overall effect (P = 0.02).

KRAS mutations displayed a marginally significant association (p=0.02), with positive mutations yielding an OR of 1.024 (95% CI: 0.774-1.345).

As for the fair test 2, the Kruskal–Wallis tests report marginally significant differences in PT ( χ 2 = 7.824, df = 2, p = 0.02) and MET ( χ 2 = 6.600, df = 2, p = 0.037) and significant differences in ET ( χ 2 = 78.111, df = 2, p < 0.001) between score groups.

However, in cases in which the probability of positive result was set on 1/3 (leaving 2/3 probability of negative or indifferent result, however, see Discussion ), results became marginally significant (six of eight, p = .02; six of eight, p = .02; respectively, five of eight, p = .088).

Individuals who consumed more coffee presented marginally significant more RA of Fusobacteria ( P = 0.02, FDR = 0.20) in their gut microbiota compared to those reporting low or no coffee intake, but the RA of Fusobacteria was significantly higher in smokers compared to non-smokers ( P = 0.009, FDR = 0.027).

The online samples showed marginally significant cultural differences as well, F (1, 222) = 6.02, p = 0.02.

The main effect of Singer was small and marginally significant, F(1,64) = 5.8, p < 0.02, η 2 p = 0.08.

However, in gamma band the interaction effect was significant in low (uncorrected p = 0.01 , qFDR = 0.0427, 10,000 permutations) and marginally significant for high gamma (uncorrected p = 0.02 , qFDR = 0.08 , 10,000 permutations).

TyG-BRI showed significant or marginally significant differences with TyG index and base model at 24,48 and 60 months ( p value≈ 0.02–0.07), despite having the highest AUC, while most other comparisons were non-significant.

4 D), although inter-individual variability resulted in a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.02).

In contrast to the global ancestry estimates noted above, these local ancestry estimates at the MYH9 locus, did show a significant association with non-diabetic ESKD status in the Hispanic American population ( P = 0.0002 for Welch's two-sample t -test, P = 0.0009 for Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and marginally significant association in the African American population ( P = 0.02 for Welch's two-sample t -test, P = 0.06 for Kolmogorov–Smirnov test).

Unlike RBP-repressed exons, RBP-activated exons showed only a marginally significant ( P < 0.02) difference between RBNS+ and RBNS– peaks (in the opposite direction) in the downstream intron region and no significant difference elsewhere (Extended Data Fig. 4e ).

We next looked for genes that did not meet these criteria for significance on either platform, but that were marginally significant for both of them (p>0.02 and <0.14; absolute t score<4.5 and >2 with both t scores displaying the same direction).