“marginally significant”

The interaction of uncertainty avoidance and brand nationality was marginally significant, F (1,382) = 2.208, p = 0.138 ( Figure 6 ).

sham) and trial type was rendered marginally significant (β = 0.009, t = 1.49, p = 0.14), suggesting that some of the variance associated with that interaction was shared with the physical sensation predictor.

We assessed the within-individual diversity ( i.e., alpha diversity), and found similar observed ASVs diversity between TB, and NTM-LD patients, and marginally significant greater expected richness of ASVs in TB-patients ( Fig 2A ) (Wilcoxon rank sum test, corrected p values: p = 0,14; p = 0.07, for Shannon, and Chao1, respectively).

The MD was 2.91 μm (-0.92, 6.74) at 24 months, indicating a marginally significant difference (P = 0.14).

However, the overall effect was non-significant and the heterogeneity was marginally significant (SMD, −0.18; 95% CI −0.42, 0.06; P =0.14; I 2 =47%, P =0.05 for heterogeneity).

In addition, Brca1 Mut MMs presented a marginally significant increase in the genomic length of chromosomal deletion ( p = 0.1407) (Figure S3B ).

The group-by-time interaction effect for the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was marginally significant ( β = 2.03, 95 % CI: −0.68 to 4.74, p = 0.142), with a small effect size at three months ( d = 0.46).

The largest tumor size was detected in the ER-positive only group (4.31 cm), although this difference was marginally significant statistically (p = 0.143).

The interaction between group and gender [ F (1, 40) = 2.862, p = 0.099, ηp 2 = 0.070] were marginally significant, but neither was the difference for gender [ F (1, 40) = 2.229, p = 0.147, ηp 2 = 0.076].

When the indirect pathway was included ( path ab : b = −0.10, SE = 0.053, z = 1.84, p = 0.066) the direct pathway from Cho concentration to reading ability ( path c : b = −0.16, SE = 0.084, z = 1.90, p = 0.06) was no longer marginally significant ( path c-prime : p = 0.147) (Figure 7B ).

Risk of PM 10 for organic causes was larger, and statistically significant, during cold season for non-dust days (1.32% [95% CI: 0.67, 1.97]) whilst during warm season risk was larger for Saharan dust days (2.53% [95% CI: 1.01, 4.08]) also providing evidence of effect modification with interaction terms marginally significant (p = 0.150 and p = 0.066 for cold and warm season, respectively).

All the factors showing a marginally significant association with OS ( p < 0.15) in the univariate analysis were entered into a stepwise Cox regression analysis, with significant variables selected by the stepwise method.

All variables marginally significant in the univariate analysis ( P < 0.15) and those variables associated with colonization or VAP due to PA (age, respiratory disease, APACHE II score at ICU admission, hyperglycemia during ICU stay, presence of commensal colonizers or other pathogenic bacteria in the airway, antibiotic therapy during ICU stay) were included in a logistic regression model, based on previous research [ 23 – 26 ].

Because it was likely that significant main effects might not be found for all variables owing to the sample size, identification of marginally significant trends (e.g., P < 0.15) was considered.

All the variables with at least a marginally significant association with the total DAP level ( p < 0.15) were considered for the multivariable model.

At each step, models were retained if the newly added gene was at least marginally significant (p-value <0.15) and all other genes were significant (p-value <0.05).

If associations between individual explanatory variables and an outcome of interest were statistically significant or marginally significant (p < 0.15), then these variables were considered in the manual execution of forward stepwise regression.

For significant or marginally significant interactions (p<0.15), we examined models and plotted the predicted probability of perceived discrimination.

The pooled mean difference of the anterior neck soft tissue at the vocal cords based on the meta-analysis results was 0.27 cm higher in the difficult than the easy group and this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.150) (Fig. 3 ).

Any gene which exhibited a marginally significant trend with survival (P < 0.15) was included in our final score ( 9 ).

Thus, among the 12 SNPs genotyped or imputed in this study from 26 GC susceptibility markers in previous GWASs [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ], half with a marginally significant relationship with GC ( p -value < 0.15) were considered for the PRS.

For 2-level independent variables in all cases of marginally significant effects ( p < 0.15), Bayes factors [JZS BFs, with scaled r = 0.707, as in Rouder et al.

However, survivorship curves suggested lower early survival in the night‐warming only (C/W) group (Figure 3a , Table 1 ), and an a posteriori comparison between the C/W group and all other treatments suggested that this contrast was marginally significant (χ 2 (1) = 2.0, p = 0.15).

Mental rotation z ‐scores of women who received MMN did not differ from those who received IFA (unadjusted B = 0.05; 95% CI [−0.16, 0.27]; p = .83; adjusted B = 0.01; 95% CI [−0.17, 0.20]; p = .98) or LNS, though this difference was marginally significant in the adjusted analysis (unadjusted B = 0.17; 95% CI [−0.05, 0.39]; p = .15; adjusted B = 0.19; 95% CI [0.00, 0.38]; p = .054).

Sex of the individual was found to only be marginally significant ( p = 0.15, 0.05, 0.02 for microfilaraemia, antigenaemia and mf count, respectively), with males having an increased risk of microfilaraemia, antigenaemia and mf count.