“a marginal trend”

A linear mixed-effects model testing latency as a function of bin index revealed a significant within-block trend in the Low-tone condition ( p < 0.05), a marginal trend in the High-tone condition ( p < 0.1), and no reliable trend in the All condition ( p > 0.1).

Because of the possible confounding effects of clinical factors on survival, associations found to be statistically significant ( P < 0.05) or with a marginal trend ( P < 0.1) in the univariate analysis were adjusted for those variables that had statistical significance on the univariate analysis.

There was also a marginal trend for environment-related thoughts to be associated with slower reaction times ( p < 0.10). 3.4.

The CP group had numerically higher slaughter and thigh muscle yields; however, these increases were not significant ( p > 0.05) and only represented a marginal trend ( p < 0.1). 3.3.

In all the statistical analyses, the significance level was set at p < .05, while a marginal trend was considered at p < .10.

PTSD group average ages most frequently represented the 30 to 40 year range and demonstrated a marginal trend to increase relative to control (random-effects model standardized mean difference 0.10 ± 0.062, P = .10) ( Figure 3A ; Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 ).

The assessment of fat mass did not show statistically significant differences according to the reference sex, although a marginal trend ( p < 0.1) and a higher proportion of low fat mass index classifications were identified when using female reference values.

Finally, abnormal ROM was significantly associated only with initial pain and showed a marginal trend toward the association with higher pain at discharge ( p < 0.1) ( Table 4 B). 3.5.

Beta diversity separated saline from Alum/AgNP groups, although PERMANOVA detected no significant differences ( p > 0.05), with a marginal trend ( p = 0.1).

We observed a main effect of W2-Tgt semantic priming ( F (1,30) = 8.9; P = 0.006), as well as an effect of W1-Tgt semantic priming ( F (1,30) = 6.6; P = 0.02), and a marginal trend of block-order effect ( F (1,30) = 3; P = 0.10) with subjects responding faster when unmasked trials were run first.

While N170 amplitude for dogs was equal across hemispheres over time, from the first to the second half ( p > 0.05), there was a marginal trend for faces to show greater N170 amplitude in the left hemisphere as compared to the right hemisphere, in the second half only ( p = 0.10).

FH+ infants exhibited a marginal trend toward higher levels of leading JA than FH- infants (FH+ = 78.4% ( ± 11.9%), FH- = 70.9% ( ± 15.5%); F(1,30) = 2.93, p = 0.10).

In the theta band (4–7 Hz), the condition main effect showed a marginal trend, F(2, 42) = 2.379, p = 0.105.

A marginal trend in increasing FBG was evident during hospitalization [from 137 (116-172) mg/dL to 150 (115-230) mg/dL, P = 0.11], followed by return to preinfection levels during follow-up [134 (108-169) mg/dL, P = 0.84].

Results The removal treatment reduced cover of non-native grasses and forbs other than Erodium by nearly 60% relative to controls ( t = -3.44, df = 42.8, p = 0.001), although with a marginal trend towards smaller effects over time ( t = 1.63, df = 34.0, p = 0.11).

There was further a marginal trend for an interaction “Block × Training” ( F (2, 34) = 2.2, ɛ = 0.78, p = 0.12, part η 2 = 0.11), but post hoc tests revealed no clear differences in time-on-task effects across training groups.

There was a marginal trend for the number of rests per minute ( F 1,3 = 4.44; P = 0.13) with a greater number of rests conducted by queens at the contaminated location compared to the control, but it was not statistically significant.

The IFN-γ levels measured in QFT-GIT were found to surpass those in QFT-Plus TB1 ( P = 0.04), while the difference compared to QFT-Plus TB2 exhibited a marginal trend ( P = 0.134).

As shown in Table 3 , the overall immersion score did not differ significantly between the two groups after FDR correction, although the GamePlay group ( M = 3.94, SD = 0.67) reported a higher immersion score than the GameWatch group ( M = 3.16, SD = 1.15), and a marginal trend was observed [ t (26) = 1.92, p = 0.14, 95% CI (–0.05, 1.42)].

We did not reach a statistical significance for stroke severity difference between 2019 and 2020, despite a marginal trend in median NIHSS indicating more severe patients admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic (DS = 12; MS = 16.5; p = 0.147).

The results revealed a marginal trend for training weeks (β = −0.074, SE = 0.059, z = −1.251, p = 0.211, 95% CI: −0.190, 0.042), suggesting a slight decreasing trend in intervention effects with increasing training duration, though this did not reach statistical significance.

In this study, there was a marginal trend toward increased OS in the RFA + stent group compared with the stent-only group (337 days vs 296 days, P= 0.260).

Furthermore, a marginal trend of increasing risk of 3-year DMFS rates (83.9% vs 78.4%, P = 0.301) and 3-year OS rates (91.2% vs 85.8%, P = 0.123) was found (Figure 1 ).

Interestingly, despite this perception, there was only a marginal trend toward having used AM at least once (p = 0.536).

Healthcare utilisation We observed a marginal trend in reduced healthcare utilisation; however, these did not reach statistical significance.