“marginally significant”

There was no target difference over time for the linear trends using the mixed effect model ( p = 0.70), while there were some marginally significant differences between the two target groups compared to baseline at 2 years ( p = 0.04) and at 7 years ( p = 0.05), with more reduction in LEDD in the STN group.

Finally, the potential overlap of participants in the studies included in our meta‐analysis may have contributed to the marginally significant findings of plasma Aβ42 between the DS with and without AD groups ( z = 2.03, p = 0.04). 4.2 Tau In this meta‐analysis, we examined two forms of tau and found no significant differences in plasma t‐tau (non‐phosphorylated tau) and p‐tau181 (phosphorylated tau) concentrations between the DS population and the euploid controls.

Model 3 (∆ F (4,150) = 5.601, p < .001, ∆R 2 = 0.102) identified higher use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies as the strongest predictor of Family impairment ( B = 0.054, SE = 0.021, p =.01), whereas the effects of gender and hyperactivity/impulsivity disappeared and the effect of inattention remained marginally significant ( p =.04).

We found that neonates from mothers with anosmia and ageusia had a higher value of WBC and lymphocytes ( p = 0.06, marginally significant and p = 0.04,) and AST ( p = 0.08, marginally significant).

There were marginally significant differences between follow-up and lost participants with respect to age ( P =.04).

Thyroid Function As reported in Figure 2 , mean TSH at TP0 between the euthyroid and hypothyroid groups showed a small and marginally significant ( p = 0.04) difference.

The secondary vectors mean outdoor host-seeking densities were marginally significant compared to the indoor densities for An. maculipalpis ( t 9 = 1.96, p < 0.04) and An. coustani s.l.

In the male group, the correlation was marginally significant only for the R-BMD ( r = 0.25, p = 0.04); other BMD indices did not correlate with CAP.

25 In our study, non-optimally controlled patients had a marginally significant ( P =0.04) 11% increased risk of hospitalization than those with optimal control.

There was a marginally significant positive relationship between δ 15 N and length for A. nigricans ( F 1,13 = 5.10, R 2 = .28, p = .04) and a significant negative relationship between δ 34 S and length for C. viridis ( F 1,16 = 10.38, R 2 = .39, p = .005) (Figure S1 ).

The minimally-adjusted effects of long-term limiting illness and difficulty walking were likewise attenuated and became marginally significant ( p = 0.04) after adjusting for SEP.

Differences between temperatures were marginally significant in the female dataset (F = 3.1, df = 2, p = 0.04) but not in the male dataset (F = 1.3, df = 2, p = 0.26).

2c ; P -values for G were less than 10 −9 in both cases, while GxT was marginally significant with P = 0.04 and 0.07 for Mp prr ko and Mp toc1 ko , respectively).

The enrichment of A-T mutations is marginally significant (p = 0.04 for the comparison of these observed A-T mutations with human-chimpanzee differences and p = 0.03 for the comparison with human polymorphisms, Fisher exact test) and merits re-examination when more human Y mutations are identified.

Pooling the data assessing OS for 2138 patients from all included studies revealed marginally significant difference between CRT and RT alone (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45-0.98, P = 0.04) and significant between-study heterogeneity ( P = 0.09).

Recently, a large-scale retrospective study ( n = 1048) based on National Cancer Database showed preoperative radiotherapy contributed to a prolonged OS with a marginally significant P value (log-rank P = 0.04), compared with patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy [ 19 ].

Association of SNPs with PCa risk or disease aggressiveness When each of the SNPs was analyzed separately, age-adjusted logistic regression analysis demonstrated that Hispanic Caucasian carriers of the GG genotype when compared with the CC genotype showed a marginally significant decreased risk for PCa (OR = 0.31, P = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.10–0.96; Table IV ).

Experiment 2: Epifauna (Core Samples) For core-sampled epifauna in Experiment 2, the only community metric on which landscape size had a marginally significant effect was community evenness ( P = 0.04, Fig 8C ).

Specifically, we found that phlD gene abundances increased along with consortium richness gradient (electronic supplementary material, figure S4A) and only mvp1–4 strain had a marginally significant positive identity effect on the relative phlD gene abundances ( p = 0.04, electronic supplementary material, table S6).

Analysis by two-way ANOVA revealed marked phenotype effects (F2,45 = 25.5, p -value ≤ 0.001), no strain effects (F2,45 = 2.64, p -value = 0.08), and a marginally significant interaction (F4,45 = 2.74, p -value = 0.04).

rCBF significantly decreased after mild water intoxication (Figure 2c bottom , e, g) in both genotypes, reaching a plateau of −44.6 ± 3.5% and −35.6 ± 3.96% already within 15 min., with a small and marginally significant difference between the genotypes in accumulated rCBF reduction after WI (+7.56 ± 3.49% in WT compared to Aqp4 −/− , p = .04, Figure 2e ).

4 ; and Table 2 –30-day unplanned readmission; Table 3 –30-day mortality; and Additional file 2 : Table S2–30-day unplanned readmission/mortality) showed the proportion of overall variation in outcomes explained by variation between hospitals (Model 1) was not statistically significant for unplanned readmission (ICC = .0205, p = 0.12) or mortality (ICC = 0.0000), while the between-hospital variation in the combined readmission/mortality outcome was marginally significant in the null model, explaining 3.0% of the total variance in outcomes ( p = 0.04).

8D ), associations of Mushu and Aster with IBD diagnosis remained marginally significant ( P -value = 0.04), while Roos and Lelie associations lost significance ( P -value > 0.05).

Along with these significant bivariate differences in race, gender, and household composition, the difference in rates of identified disability is substantively similar (48 percent and 47 percent) but marginally significant (p=0.04) due to different levels of missing data.

The pairs of results for Ch(N2)T (Teams 1, 7) and for T340 (Teams 7, 10) were quite comparable; while the somewhat greater difference for the TOT result pair (Teams 8, 18), was marginally significant ( p = 0.04).