“marginally statistically significant”

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 ).

The corresponding correlations of male and female age groups with titers for the second period was -0.36 and- 0.07975, respectively, and they were marginally statistically significant (p = 0.043) and not significant (0.48), correspondingly.

Much to our surprise, dual introduction of IE72 and wt p53 produced an average of 13.6% GFP + cells, an ~1.4 fold increase from the baseline rate of ~9%, an increase that was only marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.043) (fold changes of 1.3, 1.7, 1.5 in three experiments) ( Figure 3 C).

There was, however, a marginally statistically significant difference between the groups in regard to cystic bleb type when compared with all other types of bleb ( P = 0.043, Fisher's exact tests).

There was a marginally statistically significant difference in the tobacco consumption between both groups (7% in prolonged QTc group vs. 17.4% in normal QTc group, P value = 0.043).

Similarly, 10 μM CHCA increased human PMM2 enzymatic activity by 40%, which was marginally statistically significant because of the variance ( P =0.0436), as shown in Fig. 5 B.

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).

A test of the statistical interaction between timepoint and Inpatient Rehabilitation and Home groups, indicated that the interaction was marginally statistically significant (likelihood ratio chi-square (3) = 8.0, p = 0.045); in other words, the magnitude of the relative risks for high pain between the two groups significantly differed across time.

Yet, compared with this, the subgroup LIBRE-cancer presented more favorable pro-ENK levels than participants of OMA-cancer, a difference that was marginally statistically significant (63 pmol/L vs. 69 pmol/L, p = 0.045).

Among the epidemiological factors, age had no impact on PFS (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.978-1.003, p=0.141) but had a marginally statistically significant impact on OS (HR 0.987, 95%CI 0.975-1.00) p =0.045.

Taking this interaction into consideration, the regression coefficient for HPV positivity was statistically significant or marginally statistically significant for COX intensity (P=0.045) and COX/HKII index ratio (P=0.099).

The decline in rK39 titers was marginally statistically significant (p = 0.045).

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.

The time × group interaction was marginally statistically significant in total blood cholesterol (β = −17.06; 95% CI: −33.29 to −0.83; p = 0.045), suggesting that the effect of the intervention was more beneficial in Group 2.

We did find a marginally statistically significant difference in miR-34a levels among these subgroups ( P = .046).

This difference was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.046) (Fig. 3 ).

In our sample, age emerged as a marginally statistically significant predictor ( p = 0.046), with each additional year associated with a 0.07-point decrease in personhood beliefs.

SMS had a marginally statistically significant impact on FIC versus control (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.00-1.35; p = 0.046).

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.

This latter trend was only marginally statistically significant due to small sample size and the short period between surveys (p = 0.046, by 1-tailed Fisher exact test).

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.

The two-sided t-test for the two groups had a t value of 2.03, and the difference between placebo and active substances was marginally statistically significant (P=0.047).

Removal of the 14 potential outliers resulted in a pooled SMD of 0.410 (95% CI 0.005–0.815) which was only marginally statistically significant ( t = 2.08, P = 0.047).

This difference is marginally statistically significant ( P = 0.0470).