“marginally significant”

23 The provision of CRT alone was associated with a marginally significant (24%) reduction in all-cause mortality (p = 0.06).

Treatment by time interactions were marginally significant ( P = .06).

Next, although thiamine supplementation levels accounted for marginally significant growth in infants’ receptive language development across the entire 2‐ through 52‐week period ( F (1,329) = 3.18 , P = 0.06), the time‐by‐thiamine dosage level interaction accounted for significant receptive language development during this period ( F (3,726) = 2.86 , P = 0.04).

A two-way factorial ANOVA revealed marginally significant main effect of spatial ability F(1, 124) = 3.680, p = 0.06, with high spatial ability participants scoring higher on the post-test.

Notably, we observed a significant difference in species richness (number of species) in CRC patients compared to controls (b = 4.19, 95 % CI: (1.51, 6.86), p = 2.20e-03) and a marginally significant difference in species diversity (Shannon entropy) (b = 0.07, 95 % CI: (-2.62e-03, 0.14), p = 0.06).

For all peaks, the left hemisphere preference of 14% was marginally significant (Χ 2 = 3.634; p < 0.06).

In this case, the differences between intervention and control communities were marginally significant, with the intervention communities having higher mean concentrations after adjusting for year, p = 0.06.

Familiarization Phase There were marginally significant differences in looking times between the touch-cue (M = 81.19 s, SD = 23.76 s), and no-cue (M = 69.87 s, SD = 19.43 s) conditions, t (52) = 1.91, p = 0.06, d = 0.52.

There were no significant correlations between the three drought tolerance metrics at either the individual plant level (there was a marginally significant correlation at the individual level between the SL and G min , p = 0.06) or at the plot level (i.e., CWMs) ( Table 3 ; Figure 3 ).

An ANOVA-type statistics (ATS) with within-subject factor Moment (interesting, non-interesting) and between-subject factor Person (PwD, MT) showed a significant interaction between Moment and Person [ATS(1) = 15.72, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant effect of Person [ATS(1) = 3.41, p = 0.06].

We identified a greater parametric response to decreasing losses relative to increasing gains in each of these three regions (significant in the ventral striatum, t (27) = 3.52, P = 0.002; and amygdala, t (27) = 3.16, P = 0.004; marginally significant in the ACC/OFC, t (27) = 1.95, P = 0.06; Figure 3 D–F), consistent with previous reports of loss-biased value signals in these regions ( Tom et al ., 2007 ; Canessa et al ., 2013 ; Sokol-Hessner et al ., 2013 ).

After adjusting for age in Cox regression analysis, the association between TOP2A deletion and time to recurrence remains strongly significant (p-value = 0.002) whereas the association with survival is marginally significant (p-value = 0.06).

We detected 14 (37.8%) lincRNA/mRNA pairs with the H2H type, which shows marginally significant over-representation ( p = 0.06, one-sided Binomial test) relative to the global distribution.

However, for the accuracy measures, we found that at Time 1 there was a marginally significant effect of Genotype for the switch condition [ F (2,51) = 2.85; p < 0.06; η 2 p = 0.11].

Two markers from the dietary recall were significant predictors: the lagged number of kilocalories (marginally significant at p = 0.06) and the contemporaneous percent calories from carbohydrates.

Results After the adjustment for potential confounders, a marginally significant association was found between DII and MetS (OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 0.93–4.82; P = 0.06).

However, there was a marginally significant difference in the number of boys and girls: 90% (9/10) of children in the ADHD group were boys, compared with 55% (11/20) in the control group ( P =.06).

The effect of rhythm modality was marginally significant, F (1, 19) = 3.93, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.17 (Bayes factor 2.3: 1 in favor of the effect), with a trend of somewhat greater d’ for A than for AV.

The linear association between the age and the EEB was marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.03, F (1,111) = 3.65, p = 0.06, AIC = 141.46) whereas the quadratic association between age and EEB was significant ( R 2 = 0.07, F (2,110) = 4.08, p = 0.02, AIC = 139.14) and explained 4% of the variance more than the linear model.

The results of the hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one, parental distress contributed marginally significant to the regression model ( B = − 0.13, SE = 0.07, β = − 0.23, p = 0.06).

The effect was marginally significant [ F (1, 53) = 2.15, p = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.47].

There are marginally significant differences in the number of female flowers between the distal half (1.2 ± 1.1; mean ± SD) and the proximal half (3.3 ± 3.4; P = 0.06) of the inflorescence.

A marginally significant association was identified between tumor size and FZD8 cytoplasmic expression (P=0.06), whereas small tumors exhibited a high expression of FZD8.

In a multivariate model, percentage change in tumor size at the first assessment was a marginally significant positive predictor for PFS ( P = .06).

For patients with brain metastasis at baseline, the combination therapy achieved a significant better PFS than the monotherapy (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.39–0.90; p = 0.01), and a better OS with the difference marginally significant (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.46–1.02; p = 0.06).