“marginally significant”

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.

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).

Predictors that were at least marginally significant (p < 0.15) were entered into a final multivariable model.

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.

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 ).

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 men, the CT genotype did not show a significant association (OR = 1.051, 95% CI = 0.962–1.149, P = 0.272), while the TT genotype was marginally significant (OR = 1.116, 95% CI = 0.960–1.298, P = 0.152).

The indirect effect was β = 0.14 (95% CI: 0.045-0.235), suggesting potential mediation, though the direct effect remained marginally significant (p = 0.154).

The Mann–Whitney U test comparing silicosis risk scores before and after web application deployment revealed a marginally significant reduction in mean rank scores (U = 41,085, p = 0.155).

ANCOVA Analysis for MDA When Time II MDA values were analyzed with Time I as a covariate, the group effect was not significant—F(1,37) = 0.54, p = 0.466—while the baseline covariate was marginally significant: F(1,37) = 2.08, p = 0.157.

A marginally significant interaction of difficulty and tDCS stimulation was observed ( F 1,9 = 2.26, p = 0.16).

We also found the shorter sleepers had relatively fewer night wakes in both the ABCD and SSBC datasets ( p = 0.051 for the ABCD study and p = 0.161 for the Shanghai dataset; marginally significant), indicating higher sleep efficiency in these adolescents.

mansoni infection and an increased level of fecal calprotectin in children (100 μg/g: P = 0.414; 150 μg/g: P = 0.598), and only a marginally significant association in mothers (100 μg/g: P = 0.162; 150 μg/g: P = 0.075). 25 Fecal occult blood.

The rest of the variables showed no statistically significant differences; however, the % of PVH variation showed to be marginally significant ( p = 0.163).

K D values obtained for tagless BRAF (mean ± SD for dimer: 25.5 ± 4.1 nM, n = 4; monomer: 35.5 ± 0.4 nM, n = 2) were similar to those for MBP‐BRAF (Table 1 ), with negligible or marginally significant differences (dimer: p = 0.164, monomer: p = 0.0464).

The simple main effect of congruency was marginally significant in the HMA group [ F (1,13) = 2.09, p = 0.17], indicating that congruent probes were processed faster ( M = 627 ms) than incongruent probes ( M = 814 ms).

The KUS121-treated and control groups showed marginally significant differences in terms of a-wave amplitude (157.6 ± 72.5 μV vs. 119.3 ± 34.4 μV, P = 0.170; Fig. 3b ).

Despite the negative trend in μ S , a high level of resilience R C for warm conditions was maintained across the LUI gradient (linear mixed model (lme), F 1,35 =3.8, P =0.060; with a marginally significant increase that was consistent across regions, F 1,35 =0.5, P =0.181).

This effect was marginally significant ( β = −0.12, p = 0.19, η 2 = 0.02).

The RS‐Combined effect was marginally significant (mean difference = 0.45, p = 0.19), but individual timepoint analyses confirm robust improvements.

A marginally significant difference ( P = 0.19) was observed for adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern, with lower adherence in children whose parents underestimated their weight as compared with those who correctly perceived it.

Regarding acceptability judgment errors, the analysis showed a marginally significant GRAMMATICALITY effect in the analysis by item [ F1 (1, 23) = 1.8, p = 0.193; F2 (1, 253) = 3.03, p = 0.083] revealing higher accuracy for the ungrammatical sentences as compared to the grammatical ones (92.74% vs. 90.95%).

All statistically marginally significant prognostic factors identified by univariate analysis ( P < 0.2) (sex, age, limitation in positional changes state, GCS score) were entered into a Cox proportional hazard (PH) model with forward stepwise (likelihood ratio) to identify independent predictors of VAP event.

Subsequently, the correlates that showed at least marginally significant associations ( p ≤ 0.20) in the bivariate analysis were included in the multiple hierarchical regression modelling.

In the sequence, correlates that indicated at least marginally significant associations ( p ≤ 0.20) in the bivariate analysis were selected to be included in hierarchical multiple regression procedures.