“only marginally significant”

Some studies showed significant differences ( P = 0.09,[ 66 ] P = 0.063,[ 146 ] P = 0.054,[ 31 ] which were only marginally significant, P = 0.000,[ 71 ] P = 0.000,[ 144 ] P = 0.003,[ 65 ] P = 0.000,[ 4 ] P = 0.000[ 70 ]) and some did not demonstrate significant or marginally significant differences ( P > 0.1).[ 66 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 176 ] TREATMENT OF CONGENITALLY MISSING TEETH CMT has direct clinical implications.

Niche expansion was found to be higher in species with high dispersal distance, with high mean SLA and seed mass (only marginally significant), and high seed mass variability, in annual species, and those introduced from temperate and tropical biomes ( φ = 5.5; p < 0.0001, R 2 = 0.51, d.f. = 10; Figure 2a,c for specific examples).

In contrast, the study connection was only marginally significant (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.94–1.00; p = 0003) and did not link with the progression of proliferative alterations in males with prostate cancer (n = 22,773) compared to the control group (n = 23,050) [ 141 ].

24 Again, as would be expected given a causal relationship, we observed a positive r P between PDW and PD in the UKB, although the estimate was only marginally significant (r P ∼ 0.01, p = 8.44 × 10 −4 to 0.07 depending on prevalence; Data S1 ; Table S28 ), potentially because of the modest number of PD cases in the cohort (n = 1,323 compared with >5,000 for stroke).

We also performed a logistic regression on the first squeeze of each sequence for each individual monkey, and both effects were also significant at the subject level except for the reward size effect on monkey D which was only marginally significant (monkey A: β (sequence length) = − 0.82 ± 0.05, t (2740) = −15.83, p < 0.001, β (reward size) = 0.89 ± 0.05, t (2740) = 13.09, p < 0.001; monkey D: β (sequence length) = − 0.12 ± 0.05, t (1553) = − 2.41, p = 0.02, β (reward size) = − 0.09 ± 0.05, t (1553) = − 1.83, p = 0.07; monkey E: β (sequence length) = − 1.21 ± 0.10, t (1491) = − 11.78, p < 0.001, β (reward size) = 0.83 ± 0.07, t (1491) = 12.66, p < 0.001).

However, due to the lack of sufficient power in the subsample, the effects on intentions to vaccination against COVID-19 were only marginally significant (effect on social norms F (1, 37) = 62.04, p < 0.001; effects on intentions F (1, 37) = 3.56, p = 0.067).

For HP, a significant reduction was observed at 12 months but was only marginally significant at 24 months, probably due to the large between-patient variation (IQR = 13% at 24 months versus 6.7% at 12 months) (median decrease of BMD by -2.4%, P < 0.001 and -5.7%, P = 0.09, respectively); however, only 11 patients (22%) became osteopenic and 2 (4%) became osteoporotic.

The “high” group showed a significant improvement in their d-prime scores [ F (1, 14) = 19.44, p ≤.001], whereas the “low” group displayed only marginally significant improvement [ F (1, 14) = 19.44, p ≤.001].

Nonreacting (FFMQ) The full-null model comparison was only marginally significant after correction for multiple testing ( χ 2 = 116.82, df = 13, p < 0.001, p cor < 0.001, R 2 marg = 0.050, R 2 cond = 0.622; see Fig. 3 for scores and Fig. 6 for a visual summary).

The interaction between Chord and Group (F(1, 22) = 3.23, p = .085, η2 = .13) was only marginally significant, with musicians having a slightly larger response than non-musicians (1.90 ± 0.46 vs 0.73 ± 0.46), as supported by the post hoc test (p < .001, 95% CI = 0.948, 2.850 in musicians).

Young adults subsequently spent less time looking at the background compared to both older adults (this effect while speaking was only marginally significant) [listening: t(177) = 4.33, p < .001, d = .65; speaking: t(177) = 1.95, p = .053, d = .29] and adolescents [listening: t(186) = 2.79, p = .006, d = .43; speaking: t(186) = 3.17, p = .002, d = .46].

Constant drift stimuli ((CS1 + CL1) − (CS0 + CL0)) revealed only marginally significant activations on the left and right lateral lobe of the cerebellum ( p < .001 uncorrected, left: peak coordinate [−22 −66 −24], t (1, 22) = 5.51; right: peak coordinate [36 −60 −24,] t (1, 22) = 3.86) and the right putamen ( p < .001 uncorrected, peak coordinate [30 −2 10], t (1, 22) = 3.93).

2, this difference was only marginally significant [t(14) = 4.3, p < 0.001 and t(11) = 2.0, p = 0.075].

The tibia length of adults from both aphid species were smaller on the infected plants than on the non-infected plants ( Table S1 ), although the effect was only marginally significant for R. padi ( M. dirhodum : F 1,72 = 43.22, p <0.001; R. padi : F 1,83 = 3.61, p = 0.061).

Conversely, in LAVA, the correlations between these traits were only marginally significant and did not survive correction for pairwise testing ( p = 1.43 × 10 −3 , see Figure 3 and Supplementary Table S31 ).

In contrast, samples corresponding to the F-FAOM global group showed almost twice the proteoglycans expression found in AFAS and n-FAOM, although differences with these two global groups were only marginally significant ( p = 0.0020 vs.

The interaction term was only marginally significant, and post-hoc t-tests revealed a decrease in response time with practice in the SI group (p = 0.002), but not in the II group (p = 0.358).

Interestingly, when we tested these two models in a combined panel that included both males and females, the additive model remained insignificant, and the dominant model also became only marginally significant (nominal p = 0.003 in the LMG data; nominal p = 0.0159 in the DG data).

However, the difference between the two groups in OS was only marginally significant (chi-square test, P = 0.003).

Overall, this finding suggests that more information about Notochthamalus will be recovered from further exploration in locations to the south of Niebla; additional genotyping also will be necessary to increase the power of this test, as the five loci indicated have only marginally significant results for the CND test; correction for multiple testing would, in fact, require a P -value of <0.003, which none of these loci obtain.

As a result, we found all the differences highly significant ( P < 10 −10 ), except the difference between TribeMCL and gUPGMA, which was only marginally significant ( P = 0.004) (see Supplementary Figure S2).

The difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.007).

When a more stringent α level based on Bonferroni correction (α = .0017) was applied, most primary outcomes remained statistically significant except for 30-day readmission, which was only marginally significant ( P = .007).

Using the top-ranked genes, we largely recapitulated the ER+ and basal-like subtypes (Additional file 6 : Figure S2c) although the association between patients’ survival and our subtypes is only marginally significant after multiple testing adjustment ( P = 0.008, Additional file 7 : Figure S3c).

Both groups exhibited implicit adaptive salience (see Table 1 ), though this effect was only marginally significant in the TRS group [controls: mean = 8.85 ms, SD = 17.34 ms, t(30) = 2.841, P = 0.008; patients: mean = 12.28 ms, SD = 24.87 ms, t(17) = 2.093, P = 0.052].