“marginal significance”

For smartphone addiction, the S–W test was non-significant ( p = 0.090), but the K–S test showed marginal significance ( p < 0.001).

Non-MHC loci had only a few signatures of interactions with marginal significance (smallest p ~ 1×10 −3 ) between CTLA4 , HLA-DR , HLA-DQ , IL2RA , and INS loci ( S1 Table ).

However, a highly significant heterogeneity was identified in sleep duration ( Q value = 259.382, P < .001), suggesting that there may be a large variation in its instrumental variables.The horizontal pleiotropic test showed marginal significance (intercept = 0.019, P = .064), suggesting that there may be a slight pleiotropic bias.

While season showed marginal significance (GLMM: χ 2 (1) = 15.69; p < 0.001), its effect was most pronounced in interactions.

We used traditional levels of statistical significance throughout: 0.01 ≤ p -value < 0.05 indicated marginal significance, 0.001 ≤ p = value < 0.01 indicated significance, and p -value < 0.001 indicated high significance.

In keeping with the speed‐accuracy tradeoff, RT was analogously slower as sensitivity increased (with marginal significance for the latter data set) (3FH: r = 0.506, t 38 = 3.62, p < 10 −3 ; 7CM: r = 0.346, t 19 = 1.61, p = .062).

When stratified by the region, there was a marginal significance between high pretreatment NLR and worse OS in the region of Asia (HR = 4.05, 95% CI 2.25–7.31; P < 0.001) and the regions of Europe and America (HR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.88–3.79, P < 0.001).

Scadding stage typically remained significant in full models of architectural distortion, fibrotic abnormality, hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, micronodules, reticular abnormality, and traction bronchiectasis, while dropping to marginal significance ( p ≈ 0.001) in full models of conglomerate mass and ground-glass and losing significance ( p > 0.001) in full models of mosaic attenuation. 4.

Interestingly, while the association between mean CRP and change in LTI only reached marginal significance in our primary analysis, their association became significant (beta = −0.27, p = 0.001) after the exclusion of patients with hospitalization ( Table S2 ).

The recent largest trans-ancestral GWAS of glycemic traits showed marginal significance ( P < 1 × 10 −3 ) of several single-nucleotide variations within HACL1 (chromosome 3 from genomic position of 15,560,699 to 15,601,569) in sub-population of around 10,000 individuals 29 .

However, the group-adjusted difference of 26 m was achieved with only a marginal significance of p =0.051. 34% of the patients in the iloprost group improved in functional class versus 6% on placebo (p =0.002).

Similar results were also observed in the recessive model, where an 85% reduction in the odds of melanoma (OR 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.33, p < 0.001) was observed for rs8031 ( SOD2 ) with TT minor alleles, and a 91% reduction (OR 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.33, p = 0.002 with marginal significance) for rs2536512 ( SOD3 ) with AA minor alleles. 2.4.

Univariate logistic regression in men identified three factors with statistical significance or marginal significance: suboptimal plasma vitamin C (≤8.8 mg/mL) ( p = 0.004), suboptimal serum vitamin B12 (≤300 pg/mL) ( p = 0.062), and low BMI (underweight/normal weight) ( p = 0.011).

In general, concentrations of most antibiotics were lower in the effluent samples compared to influent samples, with differences (at marginal significance) between influent and effluent concentrations observed only for oxacillin (W = 54, p -value = 0.004) and pipemidic acid (W = 53, p -value = 0.006).

Marginal significance of urbanicity with KCs was observed in rural dwellers (OR = 4.5, CI: 1.58–13.06, p = .005).

HIT showed marginal significance (SMD = -2.14, 95% CI [-4.69, 0.41], p = 0.006, I2 = 76%), while MIT (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.12], p = 0.0003, I2 = 88%) and LIT (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.67], p = 0.08, I2 = 67%) showed non-significant trends.

In the current study, tumor size was also found to have a marginal significance in multivariate analysis (HR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.28–4.36; P = 0.006).

In the Static Functional Index, the Toe Spread Factor (TSF), which is the measurement from toes 1 to 5, is the most significant ( p < 0.0001), followed by the intermediary toe spread (ITS) factor (toes 2 to 4), which has near marginal significance ( p = 0.0066), and it excludes the print length (PL) factor, due to its high variability and statistical insignificance ( p = 0.3362).

Marginal significance was found for theoretical learning by e-learning (c2=13.106, p=0.007), with smartphones found as significant predictors for using e-learning for theory (OR=23.81, p<0.001).

In addition, there was marginal significance for the allele distributions of rs17879702 ( P = 0.007), with an estimated power of 77.3%.

Furthermore, it discriminates with marginal significance (p<0.009 uncorrected) P1b from R2b.

The comparison between zones for each family revealed highly significant differences in 9 of the 11 families (P < 0.01), except for Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae, which exhibited marginal significance (P = 0.04611) and non-significance (P = 0.07295), respectively.

Age of ≥ 40 years had also marginal significance on increased levels of TG ( P = .01).

Such differences were also found between the uppermost SSS and the superficial veins, indicating that the latter is upstream to the former in both the young and elderly groups (0.9 s at P = 0.002 in young; and 1.0 s at a marginal significance of P = 0.01 in the elderly).

Marginal significance was observed in PRAD (p-value = 0.01) and HNSC (p-value = 0.04), while highly statistical significance was detected in COADREAD, LUAD and LUSC (p-value = 3.82e-13, 1e-15 and 4.04e-16 respectively) (Figure 1 ).