“marginal significance”

Regarding IgG, while univariate analysis showed marginal significance in CSF (P = 0.045), FDR correction rendered this non-significant (q=0.12), and no significant correlation was found with Fazekas grade (P = 0.068), suggesting limited association with WML severity in this cohort.

In contrast, Cre and eGFR were not significant after adjustments; SI showed marginal significance ( p = 0.045).

For past smokers, the protective effect of a high frequency of leisure-time exercise appears to approach marginal significance (OR, 0.22; 95%CI, 0.05–0.96; P = 0.045), while the frequency of leisure-time exercise was found to have no statistically significant influence on the risk of the common cold in current and passive smokers.

Fast food intake frequency showed no statistical significance under the WHO criteria and China criteria, and reached marginal significance under the IOTF criteria (P=0.045).

We also knocked down SPC24 in an immortalized human bronchial epithelial cell line (BEAS 2B), and found that si- SPC24 reduced cell growth with only marginal significance ( p < 0.045) ( Supplementary Figure 1 ).

While the raw male subgroup showed marginal significance (median 80 vs. 81, p = 0.045; Table 1 ), the matched subgroup exhibited a more pronounced difference (79 vs. 72, p < 0.001; Suppl.

Differences were slightly larger for PDs than PSDs, reaching marginal significance only at p17, and in opposite directions in the native and translated views like the PSDs ( Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1 ; p = 0.045 and 0.04, respectively).

Schubert ( 2007a ) reported systematic differences in locus due to preference, with loved music producing a close match between locus scores (small GAEL), a result that was replicated (Schubert, 2010 ), albeit with fairly marginal significance ( p = 0.045—see Supplementary Table 1 , row 15).

In addition, main effects of stimulation type emerged as a marginal significance on ODD, f = 3.27, p = 0.045, η 2 = 0.10, while revealing no statistical difference between each two groups, all p s ≥ 0.077.

In contrast, angular deviation showed marginal significance ( P = 0.045), possibly due to the small sample size.

For POAG, only marginal significance was observed under co-dominant model ( p = 0.045, OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.00–1.82), which did not survive corrections.

Consistently, only marginal significance between both colonies was found in canonical correlation analysis (CCA; genotype, F = 1.7166, P = 0.045; gender, F = 0.6475, P = 0.785; Fig. 9 E ).

Figure 5C showed the CTD-2288O8.1 expression level was higher in recurrent tissues with marginal significance ( p -value = 0.0456).

A similar trend was observed in the GJH-positive group, although the association reached only marginal significance (χ 2 = 3.967; p = 0.046; Cramer’s V = 0.1), which also represents a small effect size.

When combining both locations together and including location as a random effect, copy number in Gstd3 reached marginal significance ( P = 0.046) when it was the only fixed effect term in the model, but this significance disappeared when copy number of Cyp6aa1 ( P = 0.0016) was also included, leaving the association of Gstd3 uncertain.

The combined PD-L1 cytoplasm and membrane positive tumor cells in stage III showed marginal significance with shorter median DFS = 45 months as compared to those with PD-L1 negative tumors (DFS = 120 months; p = 0.046; Figure 4C ).

When the severity of hepatic fibrosis was calculated for each case using CPC, it displayed marginal significance (p = 0.046).

The group difference showed marginal significance ( t (62) = -2.037, p = 0.046, d = 0.509, 95%CI [-17.54,-16.55]).

PIK3CA mutation was associated with favorable DFS at marginal significance (HR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.75-1.00, P = 0.046, S2 Fig ).

Race reached marginal significance (P=0.046), while age and public insurance trended toward significance (P=0.05-0.08).

Models were not over-dispersed (GLMM Experiment I,PC1 : P = 0.936; GLMM Experiment I,PC2 : P = 0.96; GLMM Experiment II,PC1 : P = 0.92.; GLMM Experiment II,PC2 : P = 1.0; GLMM Experiment III,PC1 : P = 0.856; GLMM Experiment III,PC2 : P = 0.88), no outliers were detected (all GLMMs: P = 1, except GLMM Experiment II,PC1 : P = 0.285), and visual inspection of the Q-Q plots confirmed the normality of the residuals with a single exception at the marginal significance level (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, GLMM Experiment I,PC1 : P = 0.046; GLMM Experiment I,PC2 : P = 0.671; GLMM Experiment II,PC1 : P = 0.336; GLMM Experiment II,PC2 : P = 0.964; GLMM Experiment III,PC1 : P = 0.705; GLMM Experiment III,PC2 : P = 0.570).

EGJPI tended to be superior to PGEG in several of the 19 main outcome with marginal significance ( P = 0.047–0.076).

EGFR mutated sample demonstrated a higher proportion of “T cell-inflamed” tumors versus “non-inflamed” at marginal significance (17% versus 7%, respectively, p = 0.047).

There was only a marginal significance in correlation of M with intrinsic blur for defocus at visit 6 for eccentricity beyond 12° ( r = −0.276, P = 0.047) and weak but statistically significant positive correlation with blur criteria for SA for blur extending up to fovea ( r = 0.26, P = 0.039) at visit 7.

Higher PANSS scores were significant predictors ( p < 0.001) of aggression, while lower levels of HDL cholesterol, due to correction for multiple testing, contributed to the model with marginal significance ( p = 0.047).