“marginally significant”

To test whether the results of this analysis depend on the reference epigenomes that we selected, we performed this comparison for different tissue-of-origin associations ( Supplementary file 2 ) and observed a significant or marginally significant difference in length distributions in all cases (p ≤ 0.05).

Results also showed a marginally significant main effect of sex ( F (1,103) = 3.939, p = 0.050, partial eta squared = 0.037), with females’ rating (mean = 6.38, SD = 0.11) being higher than males’ (mean = 6.05, SD = 0.11), whereas the main effect of group was not significant ( p > 0.05).

There was a marginally significant interaction between culture and exposure duration, F(1,86) = 3.95, MSe = 3252.43, p = .05, η p 2 = .044.

With that said, when we look at the relationship between iconicity and modification within the different sign types, we find that the correlation between iconicity and modification holds for signs produced in neutral space ( r = .47, p = .02), for two‐handed signs ( r = .51, p = .01), and for nondirectional signs ( r = .89, p < .001), and is marginally significant for symmetrical signs ( r = .57, p = .05).

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant between P > 0.05 and P ≤ 0.10.

On the other hand, for groups 1 and 3, there was marginally significant difference in the mean genotype concordance rate among different multiplexing levels ( P = 0.050), and significant correlation could be identified between mean genotype concordance rate and multiplexing level (coefficient = 0.155, P = 0.041; footnote b, Table 2 ).

A subsequent comparison of the normalized mutant/wild-type ratios ( Figure 6D ) revealed a marginally significant difference (p<0.05) between P23K (0.37 ±0.10) and both D190N (0.64 ±0.18 SD) and P23Y (0.67 ±0.13 SD), but there were no significant differences in the GFP signal intensity between any of the other mutants.

Survival of CWD-negative females among genotypes was marginally significant ( χ 2 = 5.8, df = 2, p = 0.05) with higher survival of 225*F deer compared to 225SS deer.

Marginally significant differences ( P < .05) among European individuals were observed for AG versus GG ( SMD : −0.30 [−0.03, −0.57], P < .03) and AA versus AG comparisons ( SMD : −0.28 [−0.55, −0.01], P < .04).

30 Because marginally significant interaction was found for PA changes and baseline obesity status ( p = 0.05), we conducted stratification analyses by baseline obesity status.

CYP2C9 1075 A>C (*3 variant) polymorphism showed a marginally significant difference between patients having multiple drug resistance and drug-responsive patients for AC genotype (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.32–1.00, P = 0.05).

Interestingly, there was a marginally significant difference on the measure of environmental health t (76) = −2.041, p = .05.

Over the same period, increased odds of always having a new syringe for injection was marginally significant (aOR 1.1; p = 0.05, 95% CI 1.0–1.2) (data not shown).

In both men and women, in multivariate analysis (model 2), those with persistent components of MetS during 3 years, excluding low HDL-C for men, had a significantly higher risk of T2DM; moreover, the HR (95% CI) for high BP-stable status among women was marginally significant [1.33 (1.00–1.76), p = 0.05].

Overall results suggested a marginally significant interaction between condition and language, χ 2 (3) = 5.84, p = .05, a significant main effect of language, χ 2 (1) = 79.18, p < .001, and a significant main effect of condition, χ 2 (1) = 68.77, p < .001.

Conversely, refractoriness or relapse to the latest prior therapy exerted significantly adverse effect on PFS and DOR (1-year PFS: 100.0% vs 41.7%, p=0.02, 1-year DOR: 100.0% vs 50%, p=0.03, figure 2A,B ), which was also revealed as the marginally significant adverse factor in terms of OS (1-year OS: 100.0% vs 65.5%, p=0.05, figure 2C ).

Of course, this difference has been marginally significant (p = 0.05).

For mean arousal ratings, there was a marginally significant main effect of distractor category, F (1,32) = 4.17, p = 0.050, with high-calorie food stimuli being rated as significantly more arousing than neutral stimuli.

Up to 2 h, nanoparticles at 6 mg/kg showed attenuated fever; this effect was not statistically ( p > 0.05) significant and indicated a marginally significant ( p < 0.05) change after 3 h ( p < 0.01) following 4 h of treatment in comparison to the control.

Results Behavioral data The repeated measures ANOVA was performed for RTs and revealed that the interaction of attribute type x valence was marginally significant [F (1, 14) =5.801, P = 0.05].

A marginally significant association was observed between nicotine use and child ACEs (F = 3.39, p = .05), There was no significant association observed between nicotine use and or F 2 -IsoPs (F = 2.21, p = .14).

However, in interrupted time-series analyses, there were no significant COVID-19-related impact on the monthly numbers of patients ( p = 0.33) or visits ( p = 0.53) related to affective disorders, but a marginally significant association with a lower number of patients ( p = 0.05), but not visits ( p = 0.21), related to anxiety disorders.

With Leuppi 2013 included, the mean difference is marginally significant at -0.91 days (95% CI = -1.81–-0.02 days, p = 0.05).

Sub-group analyses in these 2 regions revealed a marginally significant correlation in the Enc + Nov group in distal CA1 ( Figure 6Fi , r = 0.81, p = 0.05), but not in proximal CA1 or in the Enc + Fam group ( Figures 6Ei,Eii,Fii , all r < 0.33, p > 0.46).

Correlations between ESS and connectivity of the aDMN and basal ganglia networks were marginally significant (0.01 < p < 0.05).