“marginal significance”

Moreover, the difference between attend and ignore M100 amplitudes at baseline achieved only marginal significance ( t [20] = 2.0; p = 0.057) for FEP, where the main effect of M100 enhancement with attention across groups and timepoints was strong ( F [1,48] = 45.8; p < 0.001).

The interaction between time and group demonstrated marginal significance with a large effect size ( F (2, 6) = 4.788, p = 0.057, η 2 = 0.615).

Specifically, the COVID-19-related worry reported by the healthcare workers was enhanced by the second wave regarding the worry about self-infection (β=−0.17, Wald’s χ 2 =4.36, p=0.04), the poor quality of the protective equipment (β=−0.24, Wald’s χ 2 =9.50, p<0.01), quarantining (β=−0.22, Wald’s χ 2 =7.49, p<0.01), the risk of less optimal care of patients without COVID-19 (β=−0.23, Wald’s χ 2 =9.12, p<0.01), the significant surplus of work because of the many postponed patient care (β=−0.25, Wald’s χ 2 =10.28, p=0.001), and finally, with marginal significance, the restart of the epidemic (β=−0.15, Wald’s χ 2 =3.63, p=0.057).

The “Warm Compression” subgroup (three studies) demonstrated the highest effect size (SMD = 0.305, 95% CI: −0.009 to 0.619), with marginal significance ( p = 0.057).

Among the male population, stage 2 hypertension was linked with an increased risk of CVD with a statistical significance (p=0.023), and the association of stage 1 hypertension and CVD risk has a marginal significance (p=0.057).

Conversely, the rate of OASIS (third or fourth degree perineal tears) was lower with marginal significance in the research group compared to controls in univariable analysis (2 (0.5%) versus 15 (2.0%), respectively, p = 0.057) and became statistically significant after controlling for the confounders mentioned above (aOR 0.1 95% CI 0.02–0.52).

High self-efficacy showed an increasing trend with increasing years in school: 13.4% for juniors and 15.6% for seniors, but the year difference only reached marginal significance (χ2 = 7.525, p = 0.057, V = 0.026), requiring validation with a larger sample of upper-level students.

The serum AFP increased in the survivals (∆=184.2 ng/ml) but decreased in the mortalities (∆=−73.2 ng/ml) with marginal significance (P = 0.057).

Though this difference statistically showed marginal significance ( p = 0.057; Chi square: 3.63; OR (95%CI): 2.17 (0.97–4.86)), the difference between the ratios was prominent.

Model 1: Multivariable Regression Predicting Hemorrhage Following PN Overall assessment of conditional logistic regression models In the analysis of our whole sample predicting bleeding following PN, the statistically significant variables left in the model were age, surgical approach, bleeding disorder, Pre-op BUN, Pre-op Alb, Pre-op Hct, and Pre-op PTT ( p < 0.05), with a marginal significance for COPD ( p = 0.057) (Table 2 ).

The treatment maintenance duration was longer in the pharmacotherapy group (t = 5.58, p < 0.001); however, this result had only marginal significance after adjusting for age, depression, and GD severity (F = 3.64, p = 0.057) (Table 1 ).

Of total patients, the presence of obstructive signs showed marginal significance ( P = 0.057), while FB location ( P = 0.094) was not significantly associated with successful retrieval.

It was notable that the core region harboring DGAT1 gene merely showed a marginal significance ( p = 0.057), although DGAT1 gene has been suggested as being under selection and been reported for many times.

The Imm-R model could also distinguish high-risk patients who received FOLFOX treatment but only with marginal significance ( p = .057, Figure 5e ).

In the promotion focus model, the predictor chronic promotion focus achieved significance ( B = .12, SE = .06, p = .043) and the chronic promotion state-trait interaction achieved marginal significance ( B = -.16, SE = .09, p = .057; all other | Bs| < .07, all ps > .14).

The presence of hiatal hernia was only significantly associated with the break on the AW side ( P = 0.038) and showed a marginal significance in relation to the LC side ( P = 0.057).

fNIRS analyses There was marginal significance in the six ROI of the prefrontal cortex for the two groups during the dots–triangles task (Hotelling's trace = .505, F (6, 28) = 2.358, p = 0.057).

We detected that the activation of Mek1/2-Erk1/2, measured by phosphorylation status using immunoblot analysis, was on average 2-fold lower in the livers of Hfe -/- mice (with marginal significance of p = 0.0571), whereas the levels of pStat3 and pp90Rsk were not significantly changed ( Figure 4 ).

Regarding survival, we found that the 3-year OS of patients with BSI (59.9%) was lower than that of the patients without BSI (69.2%) with marginal significance ( p = 0.0574), while the 3-year DFS in these two groups were not different.

At 2 years, ΔIGF-1 SDS in the HD group was significantly and positively correlated with ΔHT-SDS (r=0.4178, p=0.0039), while a positive but weak correlation of ΔIGF-1/IGFBP-3 molar ratio with ΔHT-SDS was suggested with marginal significance (p = 0.0576).

Logistic Regression Model A logistic model using seropositivity as the response variable and IRAI as the explanatory variable showed an effect of landscape anthropization on seropositivity, with a marginal significance, p = 0.0576 ( Figure 5 ).

In the next set of models on belief in the vaccine, believing that the vaccine was safe for the baby was associated with increased odds of being vaccinated with marginal significance (p = 0.058) (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = 0.97–7.39).

Stromal CD8 + T cells showed a similar tendency but with marginal significance (stromal CD8 + T cells, P = 0.058; Fig. 6d ).

Subgroup analyses of the TD group revealed marginal significance in the correlation between reaction time and reading comprehension performance at a high level of difficulty ( r 22 = –0.42, p = 0.058) as well as between reaction time and the total number of animal words generated ( r 22 = 0.389, p = 0.067).

Multivariable longitudinal analyses (Table 2 ) confirmed that high (vs low) state COVID-19 restrictions was associated with the likelihood of having ≥ 1 new non-COVID-19 death with marginal significance (OR = 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.10, p = 0.058), and significantly associated with a 15% increase in non-COVID-19 death count (IRR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.27, p = 0.007) among nursing homes with ≥ 1 new non-COVID-19 death.