“marginally significant”

On the other hand, reduced risk of death was seen in patients with any reduction in tumor AEF (decrease ratio ≥ 0) and with increased AEF but not exceeding the ratio of 0.102 (increase ratio < 0.102) (HR = 0.32, p < 0.001), though the protective effect was marginally significant in the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.61, p = 0.068).

When we looked at the number of regular responses (coded as 1) as opposed to any other response (coded as 0) as the dependent variable and filler type as the predictor variable, a generalised linear mixed effect model showed a marginally significant difference between low- and high-frequency filler types, t = 1.8250, p = 0.068, reflecting a slightly higher percentage of regular responses for the low body-N filler condition (48.1%) compared to the high body-N filler condition (45.3%).

Elithorn’s Mazes score positively predicted CELF 4 score in the quiet condition with no visual support, β = 0.012, t = 2.525, p = 0.012; however, there was a marginally significant negative interaction effect between EM and the CELF 4 score in the multi-talker babble noise, β = −0.011, t = −1.837, p = 0.068, indicating that the link between EM and CELF 4 score was weakened in the presence of noise.

The main effect of word frequency was marginally significant, F (2, 86) = 2.78, p = .068, η p 2 = .139.

There was also a marginally significant interaction between participants’ and stimulus faces’ cultural backgrounds ( F (1, 58) = 3.45, p = .068), indicating that gaze deviation degree with 50% probability of eye-contact acceptance in Finnish participants was greater for Japanese than Finnish faces ( F (1, 29) = 7.13, p = .012).

The frequency of CD82 + CD4 + T cells increased after MWA with a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.068).

Pairwise comparisons of native versus non-native stimuli for each combination of Feature, Group, and Time showed only one marginally significant effect: for Mandarin speakers, phoneme features in the late interval exhibited earlier peak times for native language stimuli ( t (324) = –1.83, p = 0.068).

Although all other variables are not significant, household income is marginally significant (B = −0.108, p = 0.068), with people having higher annual income reporting less depression symptoms.

The differences between the control up condition and the unaltered condition were also marginally significant ( p = 0.068).

detected a significant ( p < 0.001) relationship in a dataset from 27 plant species [ 18 ], whereas the coefficient was marginally significant ( p = 0.068) across 22 species studied by Leffler et al.

The Wilcoxon test showed a marginally significant difference in AP before and after AR ( Table 5 ), Z = −1.83, p = 0.068, while there was no difference in SM or SE before and after AR, p > 0.05.

Looking at the Condition * Religiosity interactions, we observed a marginally significant interaction in the USA sample (Religiosity * Secular: p = 0.068; Religiosity * Control: p = 0.052), but this interaction did not replicate in the other sites (ps > 0.3; Table 4 , Models B).

This effect was marginally significant when considering only correctly identified scenes, F (1, 23) = 3.67, p = .068, η 2 = .14.

Reaction time (RT) analysis The 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of Event Congruence, F (1, 19) = 3.753, p = .068, η p 2 = 0.165, with shorter RTs in the event-related ( M = 523 ms, SE = 18 ms) versus event-unrelated condition (536 ms, SE = 17 ms).

The survival difference between both group was marginally significant (p = 0.068).

Comparison of data from high-pass VA found a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.068), specifically with 0.21 ± 0.08 logMAR for the MVF-preserved group and 0.24 ± 0.10 logMAR for the MVF-damaged group.

zebrina showed a marginally significant difference between genetic groups at 20°C, with genetic group one displaying a lower metabolic rate than group 2 ( p = 0.068) (Figure 4 , bottom panels). 3.5.

We found, however, a significant and negative correlation between mean productivity in the whole population-year and the SEA c ( r s = −0.86, P = 0.014), and a marginally significant negative correlation between mean productivity and the SDNND b ( r s = −0.72, P = 0.068), suggesting that those population-years with more heterogeneous territories in terms of diet were less productive than population-years with territories showing more homogeneous prey consumption patterns ( Figure 5 ).

A marginally significant interaction was found between condition, LSHS, task, and rotation axis, F (6, 82) = 2.05, p = .068, η 2 = .13.

The magnitude of recalibration in the far direction was significantly stronger in the congruent than the incongruent condition for the tip of D2 (0.82 cm, t[35.72] = 2.04, p = 0.048; FDR‐corrected), and marginally significant for the tips of D3 (0.75 cm, t[35.72] = 1.88, p = 0.068), and D4 (0.79 cm, t[35.72] = 1.96, p = 0.057).

Among the ≥ high-risk patients, those who did not receive ADT ( n = 8) showed a marginally significant negative correlation ( r = −0.672, p = 0.068), whereas no meaningful correlation was observed in those who received ADT ( n = 6, r = 0.107, p = 0.840).

Results were marginally significant for highly avoidant individuals in the COVID-19 cohort (zero positive signals: simple slope = −0.98, t = −1.83, p = 0.068).

After adjusting for gender, age, marital status, education level, self-reported psychiatric diagnosis, and COVID-19 wave, the direct effect of FCV-19S on PHQ-9 was rendered marginally significant ( β = 0.098, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.20], p = 0.068; S1 Table ).

The flgH mutation (large morphotype from monoculture #4) also had reduced biofilm formation, but the difference was marginally significant ( t test, P = 0.068) ( Fig. 5 ).

Differences in systemic inflammatory markers based on surgery type Surgery type accounted for marginally significant differences in post-surgical plasma IL-6 concentrations (tested using ANCOVA) ( F (2,11) = 3.47, p = 0.068, Fig. 2a ), but not TNF-α ( p = 0.38, Fig. 2b ).