“a marginal trend”

3q29 showed a marginal trend ( P =6.36 × 10 −2 ).

For cardiovascular mortality, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and incident AF, the global test showed a marginal trend toward violation (p=0.064), consistently associated with PH violations related to the P-duration category (p=0.023) and arterial hypertension (p=0.040).

The sociodemographic covariates did not reach individual statistical significance, although cohabitation showed a marginal trend ( p = 0.064, partial η 2 = 0.027), suggesting a possible weak moderating influence on fatigue levels.

Although the positive affect result was not statistically significant, it showed a marginal trend suggesting higher expressions of positive affect during organic posts than during sponsored ones (F (1,63) = 3.56, p = 0.064, η 2 = 0.05).

similarly found that dynamic radiographic factors such as posterior translation and slip were strongly associated with reoperation, while the severity of foraminal stenosis showed a marginal trend (OR: 7.56, p = 0.064). 16 Koda et al. also reported that preoperative aLFS was associated with recurrent sciatica requiring additional procedures (OR: 17.9, p < 0.01).

Even though our analysis did not reveal a significant effect of the rs17120425 x rs9282541 interaction, we observed a marginal trend (β = 0.12, p = 0.064).

Although insomnia scores did not differ significantly across demographic subgroups, a marginal trend was noted for weekly working hours ( F = 2.743, p = 0.065), with staff working more than 48 h reporting higher scores.

Age showed a marginal trend ( p = 0.065) but was not retained in the multivariate analysis.

The frequency of severe pulmonary TB according to the classification of National Tuberculosis Association ( 7 ) was higher in the early death group with a marginal trend ( P = 0.065).

Age was significant ( p = 0.026); year of training showed a marginal trend toward higher burnout in more advanced students ( p = 0.065).

However, elevated SII showed a marginal trend on the risk of early nodal recurrence ( p = 0.065), while NLR was weakly associated with nodal failure ( p = 0.078).

Although the univariate analysis showed that professional status (univariate OR = 1.77; 95% CI: 1.16–2.71), going to work with a self-owned car (univariate OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.04–2.00) and private insurance (univariate OR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.00–2.27) were associated with perception of CUP as beneficial, at the multivariate analysis, those associations lost significance; regarding professional status, only a marginal trend remained ( p = 0.065).

5b ), and even if only with a marginal trend, their decline was also stronger at the rear than at the leading edge (Time × Elevation p = 0.066).

Although the co-deletion of RB1 and BRCA2 was only seen in two cases, it showed a marginal trend toward association among all primary GISTs ( p = 0.066), partly reflective of their chromosomal proximity.

A marginal trend was observed for VAS leg scores in the LL subgroup (p = 0.066), but ODI remained unaffected, indicating core functional benefits are independent of baseline lordosis.

This was confirmed with separate two-way ANOVA’s with sequence order (VR or RV) as one factor and either distance (5 levels: -1.5, -0.75, No Shift, 0.75, 1.5 degrees of visual angle) or direction (3 levels: No Shift, 10 or 20 angular degrees) as the other (all p’s>.164; although note that a trend analysis of RV latencies as function of distance reveals a marginal trend towards an effect: F(1, 9) = 4.334, MSE = 1.469.196; p = .067, η 2 = .325).

For tilt magnitudes, there was a marginal trend between large (M = 520 ms, SD = 94 ms) and small (M = 558 ms, SD = 133 ms) tilt offsets (t(7) = − 2.177, p = 0.067, d = 0.770).

A marginal trend emerged regarding the effect of time, F (1, 51) = 3.51, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.064.

By comparison, D2 ChR2 stimulation induced only a marginal trend toward elevation in basolateral amygdala, but still reached levels >280% above EYFP control levels (BLA: Mann-Whitney U, Z = 1.83, p = .067, r = 0.53), and similarly above unoperated naïve levels (BLA: Mann-Whitney U, Z = 1.802, p = .072, r = 0.52).

The interaction (FP-Substrate) exhibited a marginal trend ( p = 0.0676); therefore, univariate analyses were examined to detail specific responses.

While this difference did not reach conventional statistical significance due to the small number of cases, Fisher’s exact test indicated a marginal trend (p = 0.068, Fisher’s exact test).

Although the proportion of PLR did not reach statistical significance, it exhibited a marginal trend (HR = 1.002,95% CI: 1.000-1.005, P = 0.068).

Post hoc comparisons revealed significantly lower adaptation in Group C than in Group H in the third bin ( p = 0.003) and fourth bin ( p = 0.030), with a marginal trend observed for the fifth bin ( p = 0.068).

However, there was a marginal trend towards fewer alarm calls with decreasing distance to the nest ( χ 2 = 3.33, p = 0.068) and increasing group size ( χ 2 = 3.29, p = 0.070).

The results showed no statistically significant differences in PSS between groups [ F (2, 45) = 0.720, p = 0.492, η p 2 = 0.03], and only a marginal trend for an effect in SD [ F (2, 45) = 2.834, p = 0.069, η p 2 = 0.11].