“marginally significant”

When the coagulation sub-score was removed from the regression model, the liver sub-score became marginally significant as a predictor of hospital mortality (p = 0.048).

The comparison of the scores between the groups by the analysis of variance ANOVA test showed a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.048).

IM-1 (80%) was not significantly different from Med-PaLM 2 (80% vs 92%, difference=12 percentage points, P =.16), LLaVA-Med (80% vs 76%; P =.50), BioGPT (80% vs 68%; P =.22), or ChatGPT 5.0 (80% vs 64%; P =.048—marginally significant).

A novel finding in this reanalysis was the emergence of humor as an independent positive predictor (B = 0.424, SE = 0.189; t = 2.24, p = 0.026; 95% CI [0.05, 0.80]) and self-distraction showed a marginally significant protective association (B = −0.342, p = 0.048; 95% CI [−0.68, −0.003]) that should be interpreted with caution given that the confidence interval barely excludes zero.

PWA during rest was significantly larger compared to both memory (t(77) = 4.152, p < 0.001, d = 0.473) and control tasks (t(77) = 3.844, p < 0.001, d = 0.438), while the difference between memory and control tasks was marginally significant (t(77) = 2.007, p = 0.048, d = 0.229).

No obvious nonlinear relationships were identified between BA markers and all-cause or cause-specific mortality, with only a marginally significant nonlinear association found between the clinical deficit-based FI and all-cause mortality ( p = .048, Figure 2 ).

The Bonferroni tests indicate that the mean O values of pairs in which both species were non-stygobites (n,n) were significantly higher than those in which both species were stygobites (s,s) ( P < 0.00001) or in which one species was a stygobite and the other one was not (s,n) ( P < 0.00001); mean O values of s,s and s,n pairs were statistically similar ( P = 0.240). The interaction term was marginally significant ( P = 0.048, Table 2 ), which suggests that the different pair types responded differently in the three years.

Results Experiment 1 Recall performance on trivia questions A 2 × 2 ANOVA on free recall rates with the factors age (young, older) and state EC (high, low) revealed no main effect of age (F(1,52) = 1.05, p = 0.31, η 2 p = 0.02), but a significant main effect of state EC (F(1,52) = 165.18, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.76), and a marginally significant interaction of age × state EC (F(1,52) = 4.11, p = 0.048, η 2 p = 0.07).

The main effect of genotype was marginally significant at p =0.048.

Peak Oxygen Uptake Between the HIIT Protocols and Maximal Oxygen Consumption Obtained From GXT Although the ANOVA indicated a marginally significant difference among conditions ( F (1.6,14.5) = 4.03; p = 0.048; η 2 p = 0.31), the pairwise post hoc comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant differences ( p = 0.123–0.566; Cohen's d = 0.50–0.88). 3.2.

However, a marginally significant difference in cylinder at 6 months was observed ( p = 0.048).

No subgroup differences were found, except for a larger mean difference in SDM-Q-9-scores for participants with involuntary admission compared to voluntary, yet the p -value was marginally significant (26.1 vs. 12.4; t -test = 1.988, df = 228, p = 0.048; Table 2 ).

Comparing the 7–13 condition with the random condition revealed a marginally significant effect of training level for target position 7, F (2,75) = 3.15, p = 0.048, η p 2 = 0.07.

Positive changes in α‐glucosidase and carnitine concentration were associated with the increased likelihood of a 10% sperm motility; however, their influence is marginally significant ( p = 0.048 for α‐glucosidase and p = 0.046 for carnitine).

However, we observed marginally significant differences when women were grouped according to their educational level ( p < 0.048) and their profession ( p < 0.045).

Multivariate regression confirmed lower pNN50 in ASs after adjustment for RBD (p=0.029) and remained marginally significant after adjustment for RBD and gender (p=0.048 for NREM; p=0.088 overall).

We found a marginally significant interaction between E. aedis and Serratia infection on pupation rate ( P = 0.048), suggesting that the effect of E. aedis on pupation differs slightly depending on Serratia infection status.

Responsiveness, which arises from the difference in environmental variance among genotypes, increased with temperature (linear effect, F 1,7 = 175.448, P = 3 × 10 –6 ; quadratic effect marginally significant, F 1,7 = 5.713, P = 0.048, with the model estimating an extreme value at a very low temperature that was out of the range of our assay temperatures; Fig. 3 e; Additional file 1 : Table S4).

Similar findings were observed for the relative abundance of the dominant genus Wolbachia (Wilcoxon test, all p > 0.05; Figures 5C , D ), except there was a marginally significant difference between intermediate and low levels of developed land cover (Wilcoxon test, p = 0.048; Figure 5D ).

Although the interaction between enrichment and stocking density was marginally significant (χ 2 = 3.91, p = 0.048), stocking density alone did not influence SRBA ( p = 0.72).

The ‘density by location’ interaction was marginally significant ( F 2,23 = 3.48, p = .048), indicating minor sperm length differences at high versus low densities from one location to another (Figure 2b ).

However, there is a marginally significant positive correlation between ease of performing and age (p = 0.048).

For hypothesis 2, results did show significant interactions: at follow-up (T 4 ), BTR-NF participants showed marginally significant improvement compared to MTI (BTR-NF: estimate: −8.14, SE: 4.10, P = 0.048).

The analyses revealed a robust distance effect for RT at the whole sample level and in each group separately, with marginally significant between-group differences ( t 55 = − 2.02, p = 0.048, d = − 0.54).

While there were no group differences in ACC with respect to mR of corporal objects (F(1, 44) = 1.91, p = 0.174), HC achieved higher accuracies than CD that were marginally significant (F(1, 44) = 4.134, p = 0.048).