“marginal significance”

In the motivated effort model, only the group effect that had already being observed across all load conditions achieved marginal significance ( b = -3.02, t = -1.97, p = 0.05, n = 54), but no effect of maximum digit span ( b = -0.48, t = -0.90, p = 0.37, n = 54) or motivated effort ( b = 0.04, t = 0.20, p = 0.84, n = 54) was found.

Both for behavioral and ERP data, main and interaction effects that reached statistical or marginal significance levels ( p < 0.05 or p < 0.08, respectively) in comparisons of interest are reported.

For each response variable, separate models were run using CS, UN, or UN (1) as alternative covariance structures; the one with the lowest AICC value was selected for the final analysis, and the lowest level interaction with statistical significance ( p < 0.05) or marginal significance (0.1 > p > 0.05) was selected for the error term and comparisons of means (LSD, p < 0.05).

In addition, marginal significance was observed for poor overall survival in patients with frontal lesions (Log rank test: p = 0.050) ( Table 6 ).

The number of RBPMS+ cells was lower in the high-pressure group compared to the control group with marginal significance (p = 0.050), whereas the number of RBPMS+ showed no significant differences in the low-pressure group compared with the control group (p = 0.500) (Fig. 1 D).

When we repeated the analysis for the eight significant CpG sites in the subset sample with available genotypes ( N = 242), all eight CpG sites remained significant at P < 0.05, except for APOE cg04406254 with a marginal significance ( P = 0.05), and effect estimates for some CpGs were slightly attenuated after adjustment for APOE ε4 carrier status (Additional file 1 : Table S1).

Total cholesterol had marginal significance ( p -value=0.050).

The first three parameters were significantly related to prognosis (p = 0.043, p = 0.033, and p = 0.002, respectively), while TRG displayed marginal significance (p = 0.050).

A tendency for ACPA + /RF + RA patients to be younger achieved marginal significance (P = 0.05).

Significant prognostic factors for overall survival were KPS (p = 0.001), presence of tumor necrosis on pretreatment MRI (p = 0.001) with RPA-class and WBI reaching marginal significance (each p = 0.05).

In addition, grade 3 or higher adverse effects due to CT were more frequent in the PTR group with marginal significance (OR: 1.74, 95% CI, 0.99–3.06, P = 0.05), and other adverse outcomes were comparable.

Contrast II The TANOVA group main effect was significant ( p = 0.04); differences in topography reached marginal significance in the case of microstate D ( p = 0.05), while they were non-significant for microstates A ( p = 0.50), B ( p = 0.08), and C ( p = 1.0).

Results from experiment were considered significant at P < 0.05 and a marginal significance between P > 0.05 and P ≤ 0.10.

To generate loci for fine mapping, we centered 1 megabase windows around genome wide-significant peak SNPs (p-value ≤ 5 * 10 −8 ), discarding all SNPs that did not reach even marginal significance ( p > 0.05), as they were highly unlikely to be informative and would slow down analyses.

ER (−) cancer tissues exhibited higher FABP5 expression than ER (+) tissues with marginal significance (P=0.050).

An ANOVA comparing the fit of polynomial models with and without considering SNP selection method indicated a marginal significance ( F 28,37 = 2.54, p < .05).

There were no significant differences in seroprevalence (p>0.05) for the remaining variables, although marginal significance was achieved for dogs being fed fetuses, and rurality (0.1>p>0.05).

Anemia remained a significant factor associated with the functional disability when assessed according to mRS >3 (adjusted OR = 2.36; 95% CI = 1.1–5.1), in contrast to the marginal significance observed when assessed according to composite index (adjusted OR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.01–4.75) and no relationship according to BI ( P > 0.05).

Initial unit root testing (ADF) indicated stationarity in the ILI% series ( p = 0.047); however, given the marginal significance near the critical threshold, a KPSS test was further conducted, confirming non-stationarity ( p < 0.05).

The association between percent of total energy from sugar and body fat percent at follow-up had marginal significance ( p = 0.05).

As compared to the EBL group, higher survival rate was noted in the EVO group with statistically marginal significance (85.5% vs. 93.1%, 77.2% vs. 93.1%, 74.2% vs. 93.1%, and 74.2% vs. 93.1% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively; P =0.050) ( Fig. 2 ).

Higher levels of O 3 suggested a marginal significance with daytime attacks of breathlessness ( p = 0.05).

When comparing outcomes by IMS regimens, there were no significant differences in preterm births ( p = 0.60) between groups; however, marginal significance was observed for live births ( p = 0.05) ( Table S1B and Fig.

The downregulation of miR-181b expression between post- and 60 min post-exercise showed marginal significance (fold change = 0.84, P = 0.05) and paralleled significant upregulation of potential target TERT transcript (fold change = 14.75, P <0.05).

The following variables had multivariable significance: introduced Boer breed goats (OR = 6.9; 95% CI 1.7, 27.3, p<0.001); goats 3 years or older (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.3, 12.5, p = 0.004); and goats located in Vientiane Capital had marginal significance (OR 5.4; 95% CI 1.0, 29.3, p = 0.05) ( Table 2 ).