“marginally significant”

The regression analysis showed a significant main effect for spatial ability [β = −0.507, se(HC4) = 0.181, p = 0.007], no main effect of condition [β = 0.703, se(HC4) = 0.399, p = 0.10], and a marginally significant interaction effect between spatial ability and condition [β = 0.224, se(HC4) = 0.123, p = 0.07].

The difference between the titers was marginally significant at the p = 0.07 level among the groups using the analysis of variance procedure.

Differences are marginally significant at 00h00/TZ12 [RR = 5.86, 95% CI = (0.82; 41.98), P = 0.07] and 03h00/ZT21 [RR = 0.08, 95% CI = (0.006; 1.09), P = 0.058].

In contrary, lymphovascular invasion was a significant predictor of RFS (HR = 2.229, 95% CI: 1.436–3.461, p < 0.001) and a marginally significant predictor for OS (HR = 1.602, 95% CI: 0.964–2.664, p = 0.070) ( Table 3 ).

After genotype classification, we found significant differences in the crude model among genotypes for age ( P = 0.03), FFM ( P = 0.00), BMI ( P = 0.06), RMR per BMI ( P = 0.02), RMR per FFM ( P = 0.05) RMR deviation ( P = 0.01), FBS ( P = 0.04), marriage status ( P = 0.07), economic status ( P = 0.01), and physical activity ( P = 0.04). Also, after controlling for confounders, age remained marginally significant ( P = 0.07) with a higher mean in the group with risk allele group (CC + CG), and in education status ( P = 0.01).

However, a marginally significant association was found between NIBS and the complaints of discomfort by the participants (RR = 5.00; 95% CI: 0.89, 27.97; p = 0.07, I 2 = 0%).

There was no significant 3‐way interaction between standardized length squared, tactic, and year, χ 2 ( df = 2, N = 1398) = 2.98, p = 0.2, but the 3‐way interaction between standardized length, tactic, and year was marginally significant, χ 2 ( df = 2, N = 1398) = 5.34, p = 0.07.

Need frutration was a marginally significant predictor of others’ reports of depressive symptoms when controlling for baseline reports, beta = 0.14, p = 0.07.

When looking for correlations among rates across types of mutations, CNV duplication and deletion rates were the only two categories that exhibited even a marginally significant correlation (Pearson’s correlation = 0.62, t = 2.13, df = 7, P = 0.07), whereas no positive or negative correlations were found among rates for any other mutation types in this study ( supplementary table S6 , Supplementary Material online ).

Finally, the Group by Trial interaction was marginally significant: F (10, 265) = 1.73, MSE = 1.88, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.06.

Defined by methodology A, B, or C, higher PD-L1 group showed a better prognosis trend although the difference was marginally significant as determined by the log-rank test (p=0.07 as classified by methodology A, p=0.14 as classified by methodology B, p=0.12 as classified by methodology C, Figures 1A–C ).

The main effect for relevance was marginally significant, F (1,37) = 3.45, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.09, with an observed power = 0.44.

The difference between high dose BRD and healthy groups was marginally significant ( P = 0.070), while the difference between the low dose BRD and healthy groups were insignificant ( P = 0.592).

According to Table 2 , the crude RR illustrated a marginally significant effect of β-glucan ointment on wound healing (RR = 5.65; 95% CI: 0.85, 37.55; p = 0.07); however, RD showed a significant difference between the probability of remission in patients receiving β-glucan ointment and those receiving Stratamed ointment.

9.9 months, p=0.15) ( Figure 2B ) and showed a marginally significant prognosis (aHR = 0.7; 95% CI=0.48-1.02; p=0.07) ( Table 2 ).

Similar to cross-frequency PLV findings, we observed a marginally significant relationship between infant theta power and infant-adult PLVs in the free play condition (rho= 0.31, p = .07) but not in the resting state condition (rho=0.24, p = .17).

This effect was marginally significant [M warmth appeal = 5.97, SD = 0.72, M absence of warmth appeal = 5.63, SD = 0.97, t (168) = 1.66, p = 0.07].

The test revealed a statistically significant difference in change in scores between high ( M = -1.45, SD = 2.9) and low ( M = 1.7, SD = 4.1) initial RMET ability ( F (1, 232) = 48.38, p < .001, d = 0.17) and a marginally significant difference between training conditions ( F (2, 232) = 2.74, p = .07).

There was an increase in percentage of people who did not report income among the silent generation and the greatest generation from 2004 to 2014 (p<0.01), respectively, although the income reported were not statistically significantly different in the baby boomers and the silent generation, and marginally significant in the greatest generation (p=0.07).

In the foreign community group, only having a physical labor occupation before retirement was associated with depressive disorders, although the overall regression model was marginally significant ( F 9,214 =1.79; P =.07; R 2 =0.07).

The SP scores correlated positively with the BHS (r s = 0.86, p < 0.0005, Spearman’s rank test) and at a marginally significant level with STAI (r s = 0.52, p = 0.07).

However, in women, the association between them was significant in the partial Model 1 (b = 0.001, P = 0.039) but became marginally significant in the full Model 2 (b = 0.001, P = 0.07).

Beyond the covariates, the TP/WM deficit remained a significant predictor of Chinese word reading at Time 1 ( ΔR 2 = 0.06, p = .02) and a marginally significant predictor at Time 2 ( ΔR 2 = 0.06, p = .07).

However, we found only a marginally significant ( p = 0.07) interaction in the regression model for the RAT.

Using a Mann-Whitney test, this difference is marginally significant (p < 7%), and it contradicts Hypothesis 3 .