“marginally significant”

Values above the median for nADC 75 were marginally significant (HR = 0.618, 95% CI = 0.326–1.170, p = 0.06).

However, for conventional affective arousal index Aff(Ar.c) , the session × group interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 36) = 3.77, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.10).

We report significant ( P ≤ 0.05) and marginally significant (0.05 < P ≤ 0.06) effects of the models sequentially as the sentence unfolds over time.

However, there was a marginally significant correlation between the non-DM ( P = 0.06) and non-smoking subgroups ( P = 0.06). 4 Discussion We have demonstrated that LDL-C/HDL-C and TC/HDL-C could be independent factors for predicting the presence of TCFA which means plaque vulnerability in CAD patients.

A favorable pathological response showed marginally significant and no association with DSS and OS ( p = 0.06 and p = 0.2), respectively.

There was also a marginally significant association between AKI development and invasive mechanical ventilation ( p = 0.06); also, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation significantly differed across the stages of AKI ( p = 0.003) ( Table 5 ). 4.

The model yielded a significant main effect of depersonalization, F (1,40) = 5.29; p = 0.03, η p 2 = 0.12, and a marginally significant effect of time of assessment, F (1,40) = 3.68; p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.08.

The largest Euclidean distance value, which was seen in channel 9 for the pro-life video, was marginally significant at P < 0.06.

Due to the low number of cases, group differences were marginally significant in 2004 (χ 2 (2) = 3.53; p = 0.06) and were significant in 2018 (χ 2 (2) = 8.44; p<0.01).

The SNP by SNP interaction on BDR was marginally significant for rs2781663 ( p = 0.06) and rs2781665 ( p = 0.06), and significant for rs185631674 ( p = 0.03).

For each of these outcome measures, no significant effect of the overall time variable was seen for the whole study period, except for a marginally significant decrease in total treatment contacts ( p = 0.06) over time.

In the analyses of separate SHMs, significantly elevated risks were found for ALL (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.21 to 8.17; P = 0.02) and NHL (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.62; P < 0.001); marginally significant was CML (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.97 to 3.00; P = 0.06) while differences in other SHMs were not significant (Table 2 ).

In fact, symbiotic performance was poor overall, with only strain ACRS20 having significantly higher shoot dry weight than the negative control (Dunnett’s test, p < 0.05) and performance of ACRS4b and ACRS7b being marginally significant ( p < 0.06).

Differences between families with 1 child with a disability and 3 or more children with a disability (mean, −1.1 ± 1.1; median, −1.2) were marginally significant (Dunn statistic = 1.86, P = .06).

According to non-parametric tests for the data showing ceiling effects, the accuracy of the easier questions was significantly higher for the Note group than the Tablet group (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, W = 179, p = 0.04), and the difference between the Note and Device groups was marginally significant ( W = 164, p = 0.06).

reported that, among patients, having family members infected by SARS was a marginally significant predictive factor ( p = 0.06) of having psychotic disorder during the treatment phase [ 20 ].

Simple effect analysis showed that significant or marginally significant differences between the valid and invalid locations occurred at electrodes P4, P7, and P8 (P4v-i = − 0.507 μV, p = 0.06; P7v-i = − 0.506 μV, p < 0.01; P8v-i = − 0.538 μV, p < 0.05), and a significant maximum difference between the valid and invalid locations was found in the P8 electrode (− 0.538 μV).

When we assessed the interaction between these two variables, adherence to the Mediterranean diet (continuous) and being a health professional, we found only a marginally significant p for interaction (p = 0.06).

The Change Type × Probe Location interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 19) = 3.95, p = .06, η p 2 = .17, 90% CI [.00, .39], BF 10 = 1.89, reflecting a tendency for the inside-triangle benefit to be larger for orientation changes (12%, p < .0001, d z = 0.88, BF 10 = 81.35) than for color changes (4%, p = .04, d z = 0.41, BF 10 = 1.78), though accuracy was significantly better for both orientation and color changes when they were part of the illusory triangle.

( Table 1 ) The two groups were comparable in terms of mean NDI during pre-operative period ( p -value = 0.060; marginally significant), 3 months post-surgery ( p -value = 0.445) and 1 year post-surgery ( p -value = 0.465).

Computational Modeling The two-way GLM on learning rate yielded a significant main effect of Time ( F (1, 44) = 21.76, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 0.33) and a marginally significant Time X Group interaction ( F (1, 44) = 3.58, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.075).

And the difference is higher in under 50 year-old participants (marginally significant; p-value=0.06)) rather over 50 year-old participants ( Figures 4 , 5 and 6 ,) Differences in the expression of miRs in two groups First,Ct of each sample was determined.The relative differences in expressions were calculatedby Δct method for miR.

However, no significant effect between the scan method and scan setting was found, although the interaction between tooth and scan method was significant ( p < 0.0001) and the interaction between scan method and examiner, marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

alcohol consumption alcoholic liver cirrhosis sarcopenia Regarding the proportion of patients with ALC and non‐ALC in each age group among patients with sarcopenia, there was a marginally significant trend among the three groups ( P = 0.060; Fig. 2a ).

The difference by condition (collapsing across question form) was marginally significant for the eight squares question ( χ 2 (1, N = 72) = 3.60, p = 0.06) and the ten hexagons question ( χ 2 (1, N = 72) = 2.83, p = 0.09).