“marginal significance”

Healthy and CD children differed at the level of KEGG modules, with marginal significance explaining 9.4% of the variation ( P =0.059; Supplementary Figure S3 ).

Marginal significance was found for the correlation between the change scores of the picture-updating task and the changed RP amplitude of stimulus-based action ( rs = 0.482, p = 0.059), showing that improved performance of executive function after training was positively related with the increased RP amplitude in stimulus-based action.

The same pattern was present in the EPT task ( M = 10.8 s , S D = 3.73 s for aligned and M = 11.84 s , S D = 3.63 s for misaligned) and reached marginal significance ( F (1,22) = 3.98, p = 0.059,generalized η 2 = 0.021).

Table 2 below reports the two-way ANOVA results, where a marginal significance in the main effect of time constraint with a medium to large effect size could be observed ( F = 3.928, p = 0.059, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\eta }^{2}$$\end{document} η 2 = 0.129).

Analysis of the results for the third question, in the ‘intentions’ category of this second dilemma, indicates marginal significance in the no-sports group ( p = 0.059).

Similarly, in covariate-adjusted PERMANOVA analysis of the unweighted UniFrac distance, wine drinkers differed from non-drinkers with marginal significance ( p = 0.059), but liquor drinkers or beer drinkers did not ( p = 0.73 and p = 0.59).

However, when including only the 70 Hz and sham groups, the ANOVA showed a marginal significance for the interaction effect of the group and the time [ F (1, 55) = 3.729, p = 0.059, η 2 = 0.063].

Controlling modifying parameters, using antihypertensive medication yielded lower EIF with marginal significance ( P = .059) and OR = 0.618.

CKD reached marginal significance (aHR 2.15, 95% CI 0.97–4.76; p = 0.059).

After adjusting for BMI, patients with endometriosis showed marginal significance in obstetrical complications, including SGA (adjusted OR, 1.568; 95% CI, 0.984–2.499; p =0.059) and postpartum hemorrhage (adjusted OR, 1.632; 95% CI, 0.972–2.737 ; p =0.064).

MDS-UPDRS motor scores exhibited marginal significance in the right striatum (β = −0.009, p = 0.059).

We found a bimodal distribution with marginal significance (Hartigan’s dip test: P = 0.059, SI Appendix , Fig.

Longitudinal analyses with adjustments for age and gender showed that low ASM with limited mobility was associated with increased mortality ( p = 0.003), the presence of one or more ADL disabilities ( p = 0.059; marginal significance), the presence of one or more IADL disabilities ( p = 0.030), and with frailty ( p = 0.037) but not with injurious falls ( p = 0.235).

While α-tocopherol intake showed no significant difference ( p = 0.484), β-carotene approached marginal significance ( p = 0.059).

In the late-adolescent predictor model, only inattentive symptoms maintained marginal significance ( p = 0.059), but hyperactivity/impulsivity ( p > 0.05), internalizing symptoms ( p > 0.05), and externalizing symptoms ( p > 0.05) did not.

This association was markedly stronger in the elevated BP group: the risk for Q4 participants increased threefold (OR = 3.21, 95% CI: 2.26–4.61, P < 0.001), and Q3 showed substantial risk (OR = 2.43), while Q2 showed marginal significance ( P = 0.059).

These statistical differences became attenuated to marginal significance on the 21th day (5.60 ± 3.88 vs 2.82 ± 1.23, p = 0.059) and on the 28th day (6.38 ± 3.09 vs 2.14 ± 1.48, p = 0.059).

2 a) with marginal significance (P = 0.059).

HR status showed marginal significance (p = 0.059), with lower mean discrepancy in HR-negative breast cancers.

Assuming that A is the risk allele, the dominant genetic model confirmed that carriers of the VEGFA −1190 A allele (A+AG) had a higher risk of death compared to homozygotes for the G allele univariately (HR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.02–3.12, p = 0.042), while marginal significance was retained after adjustment for age, stage, and surgery (HR = 1.72, 95% CI: 0.98–3.03, p = 0.059, Table 3 ). 3.

The incidence rate of AFM showed an increasing trend over time; however, it showed marginal significance (p=0.0592).

The ARB/AML combination exhibited a negative (infra-additive) interaction with a marginal significance ( p = 0.0593) in present study.

This effect was manifested by a shortening of the QT interval which reached marginal significance ( P = 0.0594) and a tendency toward QTc improvement ( P = 0.0921) compared with the control group at comparable heart rate ( Figure 4 ). 3.3.

For the entire cohort, the OS was improved from era 1 to era 2 with marginal significance (P=0.0595), however, no improvement was shown in CSS.

We also noticed that LASr_Ac was positively correlated with peak mitral inflow velocity at atrial contraction with marginal significance (r = 0.41, p = 0.0598) in the Fontan group.