“marginally significant”

Strong significant main effects of set were found in T1, T3, and T4, and a marginally significant main effect of set were found in T2 [T1: F (2, 308) = 7.38, p = 0.001, p η 2 = 0.05; T2: F (2, 308) = 2.36, p =0.1, p η 2 =0.015; T3: F (2, 308) = 4.53, p = 0.012, p η 2 = 0.029; T4: F (2, 308) = 14.19, p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.084].

A negative binomial regression model to estimate the effect on the Contact to Intubation interval from distance to the scene, physiological characteristics, while controlling for the dispatch system type, entrapment/difficult access, indication for intubation, first pass success, grade of first intubator demonstrated a marginally significant relationship between dispatch period and Contact to Intubation interval ( χ 2 (16) = 88.89, P < 0.001; b = −0.159; P = 0.049) (Table S2 ).

When PIR was examined as a categorical variable, individuals in the highest PIR tertile exhibited a 0.1 lower TyG index compared to those in the lowest tertile in the crude model(β = -0.10, 95% CI:-0.13~-0.06, P < 0.001); Following adjustments in both Model 1 and 2, the association between PIR and TyG remained marginally significant (β =-0.17, 95% CI:-0.21~-0.13, P < 0.001 and β = -0.11, 95% CI:-0.15~-0.07, P < 0.001, respectively).

Index values and mortality For both species, insecticide and exposure time were highly significant ( p < 0.001), while concentration was marginally significant for T. castaneum ( p = 0.036) and non-significant for T. confusum ( p = 0.161).

Also, there were marginally significant associations between the use of thiazides and the risk of BCC (aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 - 1.38; I 2 = 89.6%; Q = 28.8, P < 0.001) and MM (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01 - 1.29; I 2 = 0.0%; Q = 2.5, P = 0.447).

The threshold for statistical significance was set at *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001, with *p < 0.05 considered marginally significant, **p < 0.01 deemed highly significant, and ***p < 0.001 regarded as extremely significant.

These effects are marginally significant ( P = 0.095), but the genetic effects due to differences among four QTL genotype combinations C/C, C/T, T/C, and T/T are highly significant for both species ( P < 0.001) (Fig. 4a ).

However, the predicted interaction between compensation and nation remained marginally significant, although the effect of compensation was slightly stronger among Americans, t (50) = 12.15, p < 0.001, d = 1.63, than among Japanese t (49) = 8.54, p < 0.001, d = 1.22.

In the Functional Reach Test, there was no significant difference between the pretest values ( Z = −1.07 and p = 0.28), but there were a marginally significant difference between the groups at posttest 1 ( Z = −2.01 and p = 0.04) and a highly significant difference between the posttest 2 values ( Z = −3.40 and p < 0.001) with the experiment group performing better.

Discriminability index ( d′ ) : A one‐way repeated‐measures ANOVA with four levels (word type: BW, TW, HFDW, LFDW) revealed a marginally significant main effect of word type, F (3, 177) = 13.65, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.19.

When examining costs, switch targets showed marginally significant restart costs [ t (21) = 1.99, p = 0.059, Cohen's d = 0.20], while repeat targets showed highly significant restart costs [ t (21) = 5.60, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.43].

The interaction effects showed that all pairwise interactions between the factors were significant: the interaction between participant group and occlusion was significant F(2,118) = 3.910, p = 0.023,η 2 p = 0.062 ; the interaction between group and emotion was marginally significant F(2,118) = 2.923, p = 0.058,η 2 p = 0.047; and the interaction between occlusion and emotion was highly significant F(4,236) = 86.601, p < 0.001,η 2 p = 0.595.

Similar results were observed for the RFS analysis; that is, there were significant and marginally significant RFS differences between the predicted high- and low-risk stage I patients in the meta-discovery (log-rank P<0.001; C-index =0.63; Figure S5C ) and integrated meta-validation (log-rank P=0.120, C-index =0.57; Figure S5D ) datasets, respectively.

When focusing on only those studies that can effectively test such relationships, all included prospective cohort studies and RCTs in this review reported significant effects of marketing exposure on later alcohol-related endpoints, but the strength of such associations was mixed, with p values ranging from marginally significant (e.g., p = .038)to highly significant (e.g., p < .001).

After correction for multiple testing, a single interaction model in males composed of EOD, African ancestry, and socioeconomic status was marginally significant (IG = 5.11%, permutation unadj. p = 0.001) (Table 3 B).

For the EOS, a likelihood ratio test showed that the interaction between flow regime and drought status was marginally significant ( χ 2 (1) = 10.59, p = 0.001).

In the pRDA, the significance of RDA1 to RDA4 was confirmed through ANOVA ( p < 0.05), with RDA1 and RDA2 being highly significant ( p < 0.001), RDA3 significant ( p < 0.01) and RDA4 marginally significant ( p = 0.016) (Supplementary Data 8 ).

Similarly, maternal anxious parenting (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: [1.30, 2.51], p < .001), maternal overprotection (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: [0.98, 2.68], p = .057, marginally significant), and maternal rejection (OR = 5.52, 95% CI: [3.28, 9.36], p < .001) were associated with higher depression.

S3 ) than the corresponding distractor emotions, although this comparison was barely or marginally significant in orangutans (rate: humans χ 2 = 21.25, df = 1, p < 0.001, orangutans χ 2 = 3.91, df = 1, p = 0.048; duration: humans χ 2 = 27.85, df = 1, p < 0.001, orangutans χ 2 = 3.37, df = 1, p = 0.066).

Average swimming speed was significantly affected by the interaction between treatment and time and was marginally significant for treatment (interaction: p < 0.001, treatment: p = 0.053, Table 1 , Figure 4C ).

The associated factors with the prevalence of allergic rhinitis were carpet (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79, p = 0.001), residential area (marginally significant), duration of residence (OR: 1.09, p < 0.001).

Statistically, differences between +snow and control plots were marginally significant in June 2006 ( F 1,6 = 3.773, P = 0.100) and highly significant in April 2008 ( F 1,6 = 40.60, P < 0.001).

Differences among genotypes were highly significant for t 95 [ F (9,37)=4.05, P =0.0011] and for t 75 – t 25 [ F (9,36)=3.14, P =0.0068], and marginally significant for t 25 [ F (9,39)=2.22, P =0.041].

YOLOv6-L6 achieved the largest gain (9.8%, 95% CI: 7.0–12.9%), while Salience-DETR with FocalNet backbone showed marginally significant improvement (1.6%, 95% CI: −0.7% to 3.9%, paired t -test p > 0.0011, Wilcoxon signed-rank test p < 0.0011).

Among marginally significant SNPs in the genome-wide analysis, the SNP rs382140 near the NRCAM gene also showed significant association in the replication analysis ( P -value=1.3 × 10 −03 ).