“marginally significant”

Additionally, marginally significant differences were observed in the change of NAB scores between the Rhythmic-DPT and Traditional-DPT groups, and in the change of NDD scores between the Rhythmic and Modified-DPT and the Traditional-DPT groups (see Table 3 ).

In all the analyses, a p ‐value less than 0.050 was assumed to be significant while a p ‐value between 0.050 and 0.100 was considered as marginally significant.

Consistent with the multivariable linear regression results, statistically significant or marginally significant associations consistent with the a priori assumption were observed only in the negative index models, specifically between the mixture and both the adaptive behavior subtest and composite scores (Fig. 2 A).

RAVDESS task performance There was a small marginally significant effect of group on accuracy for the RAVDESS task between the active tRNS ( M = 71.60, SD = 8.09) and sham tRNS group ( M = 67.90, SD = 8.50), t (45.94) = −1.56, P = .06, d = −0.45, 95% CI [−Inf, 0.29]; see Fig. 4 .

Subsequent models evaluated sensitivity of main results to inclusion of covariates identified as marginally significant in univariate tests (sex, duration).

The results revealed a statistically significant mean difference in the Illness Cognition dimension at T2 and T3, with a marginally significant difference at T1.

Second, the sample size is relatively small, which may limit the statistical power to detect smaller differences in complication rates and strengthens the need for cautious interpretation of marginally significant p-values.

When predicting ToM at Time 3, the additional variance explained by this second model was marginally significant, Δ R 2 = 0.02, F (1,109) = 3.30, p = 0.07. 2 This suggests that ToM performance at Time 1 has some predictive value at later time intervals.

Although incorporating ΔFAA increased the model’s predictive performance, the coefficient for this metric remained marginally significant, supporting its exploratory predictive value.

This difference was marginally significant for the Intervention Coherence domain and significant for all other domains.

For the quadratic effects, the square of reaction time showed clear curvature with a p value of 0.0005, whereas the square of DES dosage was marginally significant and the square of temperature was not significant.

Sensitivity analyses yielded consistent directional effects: the weighted median method showed a similar trend (OR = 0.9713, p = 0.0997), albeit marginally significant, while the weighted mode method indicated a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.9723, p = 0.1563).

The indirect effect (ACME) was −0.007 (95% CI: −0.009, −0.004), suggesting that grip strength still plays a marginally significant mediating role.

However, in the aBI ≥ 4 stratum, the MDT group generally exhibited a higher BI reduction trend than the alternative group, reaching statistical significance particularly in the 4th year, with the decrease rates of 88.64% (MDT) versus 73.22% (alternative) ( P = 0.04), albeit marginally significant ( Fig 3c ).

A P -value of 0.05 is considered “marginally significant”, indicating a weak trend of statistical association rather than no association at all.

GLP-1 agonists significantly reduced HbA1c, MD=-4.28, 95% CI , -5.06--3.49; the results were marginally significant after removing studies with high heterogeneity, MD=-0.6, 95% CI , -0.12-0.00.

One study reported a marginally significant relationship between the two [ 12 ], but evidence remains inconclusive.

LVI and ECE as drivers of BCRL have not been extensively studied, but show marginally significant association [ 26 ].

Results demonstrated the main effects of loneliness ( F (1, 178) = 0.01, p > 0.90, η p 2 = 0.000) and product type ( F (1, 178) = 1.77, p > 0.10, η p 2 = 0.010) were insignificant, but the interaction effect of loneliness and product type ( F (1, 178) = 3.21, p < 0.10, η p 2 = 0.018) on T2 was marginally significant.

Meanwhile, the mediation effect of trust propensity was marginally significant for all types of interpersonal trust; however, the differences between trust and risk propensity were not significant.

Age demonstrated a marginally significant trend, with squamous cell carcinoma patients being older on average compared to adenocarcinoma patients.

At Time 2, negative experiential events perpetrated by women were more intense than those perpetrated by men on all scales, including the composite all negative experiential events (the effects on sexual harassment and racial mistreatment were marginally significant but demonstrated a meaningful difference per Cohen’s d > 0.50).

Concurrently, Table 2 reveals that aging exerts a significantly positive effect at the 1% level on per-household consumption standards for cereals, vegetables, legumes, and eggs, and a marginally significant positive effect at the 10% level on dairy products.

There was a marginally significant interaction for BMI category (<27, 27-30, and >30), but no interaction for sex, age (<65 or ≥65 years), region of enrollment, race, ethnicity, hemoglobin A 1c level (≤8.5% or >8.5%), duration of diabetes (<10 years or ≥10 years), history of MI, history of congestive heart failure, impaired kidney function, or baseline SGLT-2 inhibitor use.

Notably, direct task comparison revealed a marginally significant enhancement of V1–MEG correspondence in the 650–750 ms window ( t (31) = 2.75, q = 0.0587, two-tailed, FDR corrected; Fig 8C ).