“marginally statistically significant”

Apart from geopolitical zone that was marginally statistically significant (p = 0∙0483) in the second wave, all the patients’ characteristics remained significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality in both waves in the adjusted model.

Unlike the HFIAS score, which was not statically significant, a comparison of the two groups revealed marginally statistically significant (p < 0.01) differences in the prevalence of food insecurity across time by region of origin of households between the two groups.

In situ, hybridization labelling for IFN-γ and IL-17A in the placenta also showed a great proportion of zeros with marginally statistically significant effects of the group on the non-zero part of each model (IFN-γ p = 0.022 and IL-17A p = 0.032), though the only significant difference between the groups was a higher non-zero response in the DL group than the NC group for IFN-γ (es = 1.41, p = 0.018) ( Figure 7 and Figure S5 ). 3.10.

Influence of length of time system operational on farm There was a marginally statistically significant effect of Cumulative batch number within system on PRE-processing LBM% (F 1,73 =5.29, P = 0.024), but not POST-processing LBM% (F 1,74 =0.01, P = 0.940).

By group, PM had lower scores across the DES items as well on the total DES, the difference was marginally statistically significant (PM–MLT, p = .029, and PM–NUR, p = .027).

This group difference was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.033).

The differences between microspore viability after 1 week of culture in different media were marginally statistically significant (p = 0.037), with the lowest viability recorded for microspores cultured in NLN-13 alone (33.1 ± 3.6%).

Measurements in liver tissue showed a marginally statistically significant difference between the control and stevia groups ( p = 0.04); however, restoration of the MDA measurements was up to 85% for the leaf-extract-treated diseased animals.

In addition, the estimates of GP17 on T2D were marginally statistically significant in size in the weighted median method (OR = 0.671, 95% CI = 0.458–0.984, P = 0.041) but not in the IVW method and MR‒Egger method.

Among the general population, PW elicited more benefits (MD = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.71, p = 0.001), whereas, for patients, there was just a marginally statistically significant difference between the two writing prompts (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.69, p = 0.042).

Comparison of the two subgroups with duration 0-6 months and 7-12 months in the intervention group, showed lower THI and Mini-TQ values after treatment in the 0-6 months subgroup, which were marginally statistically significant (THI: p = 0.042; Mini-TQ: p-0.029), implying probably a small beneficial effect of spontaneous remission.

PEth) was marginally statistically significant for men ( P = 0.042).

Applying a standard test for the comparison of the AUCs, the difference between the 2 corresponding whole AUCs was only marginally statistically significant (p=0.043) ( Figure 6 ).

In more detail, a highly statistically significant difference was found when comparing the first age class with both the second (adjusted p < 0.001) and the third one (adjusted p < 0.001), while the difference between 18–59 and ≥ 60-month patients was marginally statistically significant (adjusted p = 0.044). 2.3.

Score V (Job Satisfaction) was marginally statistically significant in terms of ethnicity (p=0.044).

This difference remained marginally statistically significant after controlling for sociodemographic and health- and vaccine-related variables ( p = 0.045; Table S2 ) and may reflect the persisting exhaustion of CD8+ T cells that has been observed in some PLWH.

Nevertheless, compared to T0, adolescents from the intervention group purchased more healthy food (marginally statistically significant) at T2 than adolescents from the comparison school (7.5 vs 1.6 percentage points, p = 0.046, Additional File C); this difference was however very small.

21 reported absenteeism in terms of work loss and work cutback and found a marginally statistically significant ( P = 0.046) decrease in work cutback at the 3-month follow-up for the applied relaxation group compared with the acceptance and commitment therapy group, but this was not maintained at the 6-month follow-up.

In our predefined model, after adjusting for the same demographic covariates, a marginally statistically significant negative effect of AS on paroxetine Css was observed (exponentiated β = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.81–0.999, P = 0.048), which was not significant when further adjusting for daily dose.

The MK/S test was marginally statistically significant (p<0.048), but the results indicated that scores trended downwards only minimally (-0.002 slope coefficient).

This was followed by an upward trend (APC = 4.7, 95% CI: 1.3 to 8.2) during the financial crisis, with a 57% increase by 2016, from 1.8 to 2.8 per 1,000 live births, and finally, a marginally statistically significant improvement from 2016 to 2022 (APC = −2.6, 95% CI: −5.1 to −0.0) (p = 0.049).

The linear association was marginally statistically significant (p = 0.049), with only 33.5% of the variation in PBR being explained by the changes in MBR (Figure 9 , Table 3 ).

Corroborating evidence was provided by Wilcoxon test, which did not detect any statistically significant difference overall between the scores given by the 2 evaluators for the answers provided by the 4 LLMs ( Table 2 ), except for the scores given for the answers provided by ChatGPT-4, between which a marginally statistically significant difference was found ( P =.049).

A marginally statistically significant relationship was observed between stroke occurrence and patients with a high HAS-BLED score ( p = 0.049).

While this split is in accordance with the known patterns of Y‐introgression between these populations (Matsudaira et al., 2018 ; Stevison & Kohn, 2009 ; Tosi et al., 2002 ), this PC is marginally statistically significant ( p = .049).