“marginally significant”

The direct effect of forgiveness on mobile phone addiction was not significant ( B = −0.16, SE = 0.15, t = −1.04, p = 0.30, 95% CI [−0.47, 0.15]), and the total effect on mobile phone addiction was marginally significant ( B = −0.30, SE = 0.15, t = −1.97, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.59, 0.00]).

Similarly, negative affect scores of the Affect Balance Scale decreased after treatment for the treatment group, with results being marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

The mean K occ;30–60 values in the DD group were significantly greater in the caudate (ES = 0.83, corrected p = 0.048), but marginally significant in the putamen (ES—Cohen’s d coefficient = 1.07, corrected p = 0.05) relative to the control group.

When the multiple models were analyzed by age group, low serum creatinine levels were significantly correlated with knee OA in all age groups in men (marginally significant in the 60–69 years age group) but only in the age group of <70 years in women (Bonferroni-corrected p <0.05).

The proportion of mixed breed cats in the SS group was considered significantly different from the FU and DR groups’ in both the likelihood ratio ( p ≈ 0.05—marginally significant) and the Pearson’s ( p < 0.001) chi-square test.

CRP levels in RA patients with severe periodontitis were higher than in RA patients without periodontitis (marginally significant, P = 0.05).

The phyC mutant showed no significant differences with the wildtype on ELF3 expression at any time point, while the phyB mutant showed a marginally significant downregulation ( P < 0.05) between ZT12 and ZT20 relative to the wildtype (Fig D in S1 Text and Data J in S1 Data ).

56) that would exacerbate the effects of a marginally significant violation of homogeneity of variance (Levene's test: p < 0.05 for both Seeing and Non-Seeing levels of the factor Condition) and the non-normality of the resulting residuals (Shapiro Wilks tests p < 0.05), it was obvious that a mixed-ANOVA design might not be reliable.

Lesion LSM Lesion LSM produced a marginally significant solution for #CIUs (optimal sparseness = 0.70, CV correlation = 0.24, P = 0.05) and a statistically significant solution for CIUs/min (optimal sparseness = 0.49, CV correlation = 0.36, P = 0.003) but not for %CIUs (CV correlation = 0.15, P = 0.22).

For patients with late prophylactic cranial irradiation, the rates of brain metastasis tended to be higher in the TDRT group but marginally significant (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.99-3.31; P = .05), and the rates of brain metastasis were not significantly different among those who received early prophylactic cranial irradiation (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.49-3.99; P = .54).

Kruskal-Wallis tests comparing alpha diversity across sites were not significant for Shannon (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.2) or Faith’s PD (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.1), however, evenness was marginally significant (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.05), with TN showing significantly higher diversity than YI (post-hoc Dunn’s test p = 0.03) ( Fig 5 and Table B in S1 Dataset ).

Also in this patient group, reductions in DBP at week 52 with both combination doses were marginally significant when compared with linagliptin 5 mg (both p=0.05), but did not approach statistical significance when compared with empagliflozin. 3.1.2.

In this analysis, the association between awareness of sports facilities and task performance became marginally significant ( P = 0.05), and we no longer found that use of healthy menus was more strongly related to contextual than to task performance ( P = 0.11).

However, no significant interactions were identified for HCRU and cost outcomes, except for a marginally significant interaction with all-cause hospitalizations ( P = 0.050; data not shown).

Side effect self-efficacy beliefs The one-way ANOVA testing side effect control beliefs yielded a marginally significant effect, F (1, 249) = 2.98, p = .05, η p 2 = 0.02.

(2010) found a marginally significant ( p = 0.05) higher frequency of preeclampsia in women conceiving by a sperm donor compared to partners in spermatozoa insemination.

Mortality difference by site was marginally significant ( p =0.05; Figure 1 ).

While the direct effect of anxiety was strongly significant ( β = 0.341**, p < 0.01), a marginally significant indirect effect (0.054*, p < 0.05) suggested weak complementary mediation.

There was a marginally significant PoA × VOT interaction in medial aspects of the left AC, but only when the extent threshold was reduced to an uncorrected cluster size of p < 0.05, while keeping the peak threshold at p < 0.001.

Considering candidate genes from two previous GWAS of BDR, three SNPs (rs10476900 (near ADRB2 ) [ p -value = 0.009], rs10827492 ( CREM ) [ p -value = 0.02], and rs72646209 ( NCOA3 ) [ p -value = 0.02]) had a marginally significant interaction with age on BDR ( p < 0.05).

The mean age of the cases caused by liver abscess was 56.85 ± 15.45, which showed no statistical difference (p = 0.63) comparing with the others; however, the mean age of the UTI cases was older, and was marginally significant when comparing with the others (67.30 ± 13.89, p = 0.05, Mann–whitney U test).

Similarly, social vulnerability predicted poorer ability to find good health information (β = –0.07, SE = 0.03, 95% CI: –0.13, –0.01, p = 0.029), which was linked to lower BFSE through a marginally significant indirect pathway (β = –0.31, SE = 0.16, 95% CI: –0.62, 0.00, p = 0.050).

The beverage effect on the “high” estimates was still marginally significant after the task, F (1,21) = 3.6, p < 0.05.

A main effect of group was marginally significant, F 1,45 = 2.86, p < 0.05, one-tailed, MSe = 1.71 suggesting that subjects with a family history of psychiatric illness were marginally less sensitive than controls.

3.4 Rural-urban differences in change in coverage between intervention and control regions The difference in rural–urban coverage between RBF and non-RBF regions was lower in 2020 than in 2013 [PRR = 0.88 (CI: 0.78–1.00)], albeit marginally significant (P value = 0.05).