“only marginally significant”

Patients who developed VAP were younger (although only marginally significant, p -value = 0.06) and more frequently diagnosed with sepsis ( p -value = 0.02).

Those in the food insecure group were more likely to report having a chronic illness, though only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), and significantly less likely to describe a fresh healthy diet as “easy”, “affordable,” or “convenient” ( p < 0.001).

In addition, the LCP and CL classes tended to score higher on withdrawn/depressed symptoms than the Low class, given that the overall Wald’s test was only marginally significant at p = .06.

The same students had an OR of 0.68 of reporting behavioural problems due to their drinking, but this effect was only marginally significant (p = 0.06).

When we re-ran the analysis and stratified by smoking status, the difference in VA-FI was only marginally significant in non-smokers ( Z = 1.89, p = 0.06; GW: 0.09 ± 0.09; non-GW: 0.10 ± 0.10) and insignificant in smokers ( Z = 1.04, p = 0.30; GW: 0.19 ± 0.11; non-GW: 0.21 ± 0.12; see Figure 2 ).

We also found a two-way interaction between distribution and PPN ( p < .001, η p 2 = 0.04), but the three-way interaction involving sex was only marginally significant ( p = .06, η p 2 < 0.01).

Thus, tumor’s max distance to pleura could be clinically related to resection margin and was included in the following model development, although there was only marginally significant correlation with the quality of wedge resection margin in multivariable analysis (OR: 1.337, P=0.06).

A total of 21.6% of the variance of metaphor comprehension was explained ( p < .04), with analogical reasoning being the variable with more weight at this age, although only marginally significant (β = .336, p < .06).

The same analyses were performed as for the OLP for these four parameters and showed only marginally significant effect of pre-post for VSA1m ( F (1,5) = 7.76; p = 0.06) and marginally significant effect of the session ∗ pre-post interaction ( F (7,42) = 2.2; p = 0.053).

However, this interpretation needs to be considered with caution, first because the Group by Session by Deviance size by Laterality interaction was only marginally significant ( p < 0.06) and, second, because we found an increase in N250 amplitude that was as large for large than for small duration deviant stimuli.

We determined that Keratin 39 overall was only marginally significant (P = 0.06; 0.8 power n = 15; 0.9 power n = 20) ( Fig 2 ).

The results indicate that the concentration difference between the filtered and unfiltered effluent samples is highly significant ( p < 0.01) for the medium sand and glass bead experiments, but only marginally significant ( p = 0.06) for fine sand samples.

hexagonus (800/1131, 70.7%) but the difference between the two tick species was only marginally significant ( χ 2 = 3.6355, df = 1, P = 0.06).

Although the variation in practice across grades was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), Grade 9 learners reported the highest level of hygiene practice (M = 0.54), indicating a possible trend.

When both uncinate WMH and ILF WMH were entered into a model to predict cognition (independent of age, sex, and education), uncinate WMH remained significant ( p = 0.03) while ILF WMH was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

Similarly, Salewski, Jones, and Vickery ( 2002 ) found that in Zimbabwe, the residents Burnt‐necked and Green‐capped Eremomelas participating in mixed‐species flocks with migrants altered their foraging ecology by foraging more frequently in outer branches than they did when in monospecific flocks, although this result was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

The correlation between stomatal density and vein density was only marginally significant ( R 2 = 0.01, p = 0.06).

Post-hoc comparisons showed that, when comparing FTA cards with capillary tubes, the odds were 3.375 higher on average, and when compared to filter paper, the odds were only marginally significant, 3.344 higher in average ( p = 0.0603), when controlling by all other variables.

However, increased switch-cost in control conditions (tested with one-sample t -tests against constant value 0 for ΔLA) was only marginally significant for the late afternoon sessions [+1.81 ± 4.28, t (21) = 1.981; P = 0.061; d = 0.42] and decreased switch-cost failed to reach statistical significance after both interventions [-0.71 ± 3.36, t (21) = -0.996; P = 0.331; d = 0.21].

In this experiment, participants in the Pinyin group (mean = 2.53; SD = 0.834) required on average more cycles than did participants in the Zhuyin group (mean = 2.00; SD = 0.655); however, this difference was only marginally significant [ F (1, 28) = 3.797, p = 0.061, partial η 2 = 0.119].

By contrast, in the model using Days 1 to 3 RT, the neocortical tau × age group interaction was only marginally significant ( β = −0.36, 95% CI = [−0.73, 0.02], p = 0.061).

Childhood trauma did not predict mean HR (β = .013, t = 1.329, p = .780), and the interaction between childhood trauma and time was only marginally significant (β = −.239, t = −1.889, p = .061).

Concerning ratings of frequency and preference of use, although they were close to the mid-point of the 1 to 7 scale (1 = ‘only Catalan,’ 7 = ‘only Spanish’), they were slightly biased toward both using and preferring Catalan over Spanish ( M = 3.63, SD = 1.03, Minimum = 2.00, Maximum = 6.50, Range = 4.50, for frequency of use, and M = 3.51, SD = 1.32, Minimum = 1.00, Maximum = 5.75, Range = 4.75, for preference of use, respectively), although one-sampled t -tests revealed that the difference with respect to the mid-point of the scale was only marginally significant ( p = 0.061 and p = 0.050 for frequency and preference, respectively).

Notably, if the B1+ covariates were not included in analyses, the association between log income-to-needs ratio and whole-brain T1w/T2w ratio was larger though still only marginally significant ( B = -.00583, SE = .00311, t = -1.88, p = .061).

After EPLAs, non-papilloma patients had significant improvements in SNOT-22 and VAS ( P -values = 0.012 and 0.012, respectively), while those with papillomas had only marginally significant improvements in VAS ( P -value = 0.061).