“marginally statistically significant”

There was a marginally statistically significant association between the two variables ( p = 0.06).

In this model, steroid therapy remained the sole independent predictor of VF progression, although it was marginally statistically significant (OR: 8.260 (95 % CI: 0.909–75.095), p = 0.061). 4 Discussion In this study, which enrolled metastatic patients with lung cancer and melanoma, it was found that 7.4 % (10/135) experienced VFs that are notoriously expression of skeletal fragility [9] .

longisporum DNA in the local and systemic treatments, but differences were only marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.061 and p = 0.092, respectively).

The Effect of Perceived Physical Safety on Desire for Female Wealth-Signalling Products For wealth-signalling products and the physical safety scenario, the estimation results indicated that for subjects who were given the safe (secure) scenario, their change in desirability was on average −0.28 and marginally statistically significant at the 7% level (t = −1.88, p = 0.063; equivalently, F (1,75) = 3.551, p = 0.063), while for those that were given the harsh scenario, their change in desirability was on average −1.07 and strongly statistically significant (F (1,75) = 47.987, p = 1.271 × 10 −9 ).

For lymphovascular invasion (LVI), 2% of cases were in the MSI‐High group and 98% in the MSI‐Negative group; this difference was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.063).

Additionally, with respect to the changes in blood pressure following the 8-week trial, only a moderate reduction in the level of SBP was observed in those who consumed RBO compared with controls, although this difference was marginally statistically significant (baseline adjusted mean (SD): 125.74 (7.14) mmHg vs 129.89 (7.32) mmHg; effect size: -0.58 (-1.18 – -0.03); P value = 0.064, using ANCOVA test) (Table 2 ).

19 A pilot study comparing capsule endoscopy with push enteroscopy in patients suspected of small bowel bleeding demonstrated a marginally statistically significant high diagnostic yield of 55% compared to 30% (p=0.065). 25 The third-generation SB3, with improved optics and adaptive frame rate of up to six frames per second, was developed to enhance diagnostic yield.

Mean PAC increased monotonically with serial position, however the pairwise increase was only marginally statistically significant between positions R1-2 and R5-6, t (54) = 2.29, p = 0.065 (see Fig 5 ).

Loneliness was also associated with greater likelihood of staying in a negative state (i.e., negative-to-negative), although this relationship was marginally statistically significant ( β = 0.061, SE = 0.033, p = 0.065, 95% CI [-0.004, 0.126], τ2 = 0.006, I 2 = 0.77%).

The results indicated that ACAN was positively correlated with mast cells resting (p = 0.066, considered marginally statistically significant) (Fig. 9 A).

However, this association was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.067).

The AUC of this combination was marginally statistically significant, compared to the AUC of both radiographic response and AFP response ( P = 0.067 and P = 0.051, respectively).

33 Stratified controlled models were marginally statistically significant ( p < 0.067), indicating that among those who reported difficulty obtaining their method, injectable users were 6.0 times (95%CI: 0.88, 41.44) times as likely to have discontinued contraception compared to non-injectable users (not shown in Table).

LVEF at the time of ICD implantation was lower in the PPCM group (median 18% vs 25%), but this was only marginally statistically significant ( P = 0.07).

When looking across all celebrities, regardless of consensus level, there was also a negative association between mean loneliness scores and pairwise semantic similarity, but the effect was only marginally statistically significant in this case (i.e., it was attenuated by the addition of low-consensus celebrities; β = −0.03, SE = 0.02, t (914) = 1.45, p = 0.07, 95% CI = −0.07 to 0.01).

7 RESULTS The main analysis revealed only a marginally statistically significant interaction of context and condition, χ 2 ( df = 1) = 3.35, p = .07 as well as of time‐distance and context, χ 2 ( df = 1) = 3.32, p = .07.

In contrast, high farm density was associated with a 48% reduction in the number of compounds detected (RR = 0.52, p = 0.036), and the results were marginally statistically significant at medium versus low farm density (RR = 0.59, p = 0.075).

The z‐scores tested against 0 (i.e., equivalent means of AV and A + V) showed a marginally statistically significant MSI effect, t (38) = −1.46, p = .076, BF10 = 0.46.

Screening colonoscopy volume declined more in the public hospital system compared to the private health system, with a marginally statistically significant difference in the extent of decline between two health care systems (p = 0.077).

After different interventions, for disgusted expression, the napping group showed a marginally statistically significant improvement (MD=0.0394, 95% CI (0.0092, 0.0696), adjusted P =0.077), while the control group showed a non-significant improvement (MD=0.0241, 95% CI (−0.0039, 0.0521), adjusted P >0.05).

Regarding chest CT scan findings, patients with unilateral right lung involvement were at increased risk of death (OR=1.66, 95% CI: 0.94–2.91) as compared with unilateral left lung involvement, although this increase was marginally statistically significant (P=0.078).

Differences in percentages between the two study times were statistically insignificant for men, χ 2 (1, N = 794) = 0.53, p = 0.467, whereas they were marginally statistically significant for women, χ 2 (1, N = 794) = 3.08, p = 0.079.

As such, we consider marginally statistically significant the association between internet use and social relationship ( P =.08) and cultural activities dimensions ( P =.09).

A similar trend of greater healthcare cost reduction was observed among those who quit smoking and switched to ST in the SW cohort, but the difference was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.08), possibly due to the small number of patients in the ST cohort and reduction in statistical power after the introduction of covariates.

This is further supported by the ICE FALCON analyses which found that there was a marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.08) change in a woman's own PRS association after conditioning on her sister's PRS, and the sister's PRS association was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.07) in Model 3.