“marginally significant”

The difference in the magnitude of variance between the first and second digitization of the 2D photographs is significant only for VAR2 (.05 > p > .01) and marginally significant (.1 > p > .05) for VAR1, with absolute deviations from the means of the two replicates accounting for less than 1% of variation (Table 5 ).

The AUC comparison for anxiety was marginally significant (Z = 1.93, p = 0.05), indicating that the Loneliness Scale was slightly more accurate in classifying this disorder.

Orphanhood was marginally significant ( p = 0.05), with rates highest for those CA-HIV with no living parent compared to those who had at least one living parent (aOR = 11.03, p = 0.05).

The difference in slope was marginally significant in the piecewise linear model ( p = 0.05).

In the entire sample, the associations between phosphatidylethanolamines and incident stroke were attenuated but still marginally significant with P <0.05.

During follow-up, 13 patients died (11 in the EBL group and 2 in the EVO group); the survival rate was marginally significant between two groups ( P =0.050).

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).

In Experiment 1, this correlation was not significant in Phase 1, r = –.36, was marginally significant in Phase 2, r = –.61 p = 0.05, and was significant in Phase 3, r = –.97 p < .003.

Data with p < 0.01 were considered as highly significant, with p < 0.05 considered as statistically significant and with p ≤ 0.1 as marginally significant.

A previous meta-analysis indicated that there was a marginally significant association with the UGT2B17 Del polymorphism under Del/Del versus Ins/Ins +Ins/Del ( P = 0.05) [ 40 ].

P3 The main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (1, 50) = 4.03, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.075]; the HTA group had a larger P3 (2.88 ± 0.18 μV) compared with LTA group (2.39 ± 0.18 μV; Figure 4 ).

At the 3-month follow-up, the between-group difference was marginally significant (GNT-W M = 7.75, 95% CI 6.91 to 8.59 vs GNT-D M = 8.56, 95% CI 7.72 to 9.41, mean difference = 0.81, 95% CI − 1.66 to 0.01, t 205 = − 1.94, p = 0.05, d = − 0.09).

Cochlear interdental cells revealed marginally significant enrichment at p < 0.05.

Results of reaction time also showed a marginally significant Duration × Typicality interaction ( F 1,5 = 6.34, p = .05) – the typicality effect (RT difference: atypical minus typical) was numerically greater for 40-msec displays (138 msec) than for 600-msec displays (46 msec).

Although the effects of soil depth and N fertilization on SRL were not significant, their interactive effect was marginally significant ( P = 0.05; Table 6 ), indicating that N fertilization affected SRL differently at different soil depths.

Inspection of the total number of errors made on these S− start trials also revealed a marginally significant difference between the two groups ( t 19 = 2.09; p = 0.050; data not shown).

Nonetheless the correlation between qHBsAg titers and HTLV-1 oligoclonality index remained marginally significant ( P = .05, R = 0.53, Spearman).

1b ) was decreased (mechanical hyperalgesia) by 10% (not significant; p > 0.05) and 16% (marginally significant; p = 0.05), respectively, compared with control rats.

For betweenness centrality and nucleotide diversity the correlations were also negative and marginally significant (τ = -0.12, P = 0.05 for Africans; τ = -0.11, P = 0.08 for Europeans).

3B , in the regions activated during Middle minus End trials, the contrast M-S minus M-L did not reveal significant signal difference in the parahippocampal region (PHC), but revealed marginally significant signal increase in the left lateral parietal region (IPL1) (t(71) = 2.6, P <0.05).

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 ).

732/1619 control subjects, a marginally significant odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 1.12–1.54, p < 0.05) was obtained.

Additionally, the interaction with off-farm income is marginally significant (p = 0.050), indicating that the effect of self-provisioning on agroecology transitioning is more pronounced for those with higher off-farm income.

Effect of Stress on Fiber Yield and Quality Water-limited plots displayed a marginally significant ( P = 0.05) mean lint yield reduction compared to WW plots in 2019, but not in 2018 ( Table 1 ).

The museum model results indicated that Leucocytozoon was a marginally significant predictor of MaRNAV‐6 infection (β = 2.87, SE = 1.46, z = 1.96, p = 0.050), while Haemoproteus was not significant (β = 0.04, SE = 0.81, z = 0.05, p = 0.963; Table 4 ).