“marginal significance”

In puberty group, WHR and BMI Z -score showed positive correlation with marginal significance ( r =0.322, P =0.063, n=34) and it was not valid after controlling for age, and HOMA-IR or insulin.

The marginal significance at M3 ( p = 0.063), though not strong, may indicate a trend worthy of further investigation and could have clinical implications for the management of transplant patients concerning SARS-CoV-2 infection.

However, there was no significant difference in the age group of < 65 years (1.6%, P -value = .500), and the age group of ≥75 years showed a marginal significance (1.6%, P -value = .063), indicating a possible but not conclusive association.

For miR-150-5p, this tendency was noted with marginal significance (27.3% vs. 13.5%; P = 0.063).

There was also an association in the homozygous CC women’s group, but with marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

Interestingly, we observed that rs4979223 ( P = 0.007), rs4978536 ( P = 0.063, with marginal significance), rs2233914 ( P = 0.039), rs10817464 ( P = 0.006) and rs10759637 ( P = 0.006) showed significantly divergent genotypic distribution between groups with mild or severe thrombocytopenia, some of which remained statistically significant after multiple test correction.

The overall CVAE in a group of female patients with breast cancer who had exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors was slightly higher than for those treated with anthracyclines, with marginal significance (35.9 versus 28.5 per 100 person‐years; P =0.063; Table 2 ); however, there was no statistical difference between these 2 groups in the competing risk analysis (Figure 2A ).

Conversely, maltreatment's effect on internalizing problems reached only marginal significance ( b = 0.424, p = .063), with associations primarily reflected in correlated random intercepts ( b = 0.783, p = .025), suggesting stable trait differences rather than causal processes.

Finally, when Factor 2 of perfectionism, or maladaptive perfectionism, is introduced into the model, its explanatory power increases, reaching 29.5% but maintaining a marginal significance level ( p = 0.063).

Similarly, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) #9501 trial showed a trend toward improved OS rates, albeit with marginal significance (OS rate of 42% with adjuvant CRT, compared to 31% with RT alone, p = 0.063).

At the same time, the SNV rate of ASXL1 varied among three CPS groups with marginal significance, with the PD-L1-M group not exhibiting SNV of ASXL1 (p=0.063) ( Figure 6B ).

Although some correlations approached marginal significance (e.g., CHEQ Grip Efficiency and community participation frequency, ρ = − 0.23, p = 0.063; CHEQ Feeling Bothered and community participation frequency, ρ = − 0.21, p = 0.097), none reached the conventional threshold for statistical significance ( p ≤ 0.05).

There were significant differences in the levels of the virus RNA between titrated virus at 10 -1 TCID 50 and at 10 -2 TCID 50 ( P = 0.001), between titrated virus at 10 -3 TCID 50 and at 10 -4 TCID 50 ( P = 0.046), between titrated virus at 10 -4 TCID 50 and at 10 -5 TCID 50 ( P = 0.014) except those between titrated virus at 10 -2 TCID 50 and at 10 -3 TCID 50 which showed a marginal significance ( P = 0.063).

5.8, p = 0.03) and marginal significance for the Anhui strain (21.6 vs. 8.3, p = 0.063).

Impact of RT dose on survival outcomes As for disease-free survival (DFS), multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative CA 19-9 value was the only factor significantly associated with DFS ( p = 0.040, Supplementary Table 1 ), whereas pathologic N stage showed marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

CD8-C1 also exhibited a reduction with marginal significance ( p = 0.063).

Compared with HRW group, the BW of rats in HI group was lower with a marginal significance (p = 0.063) during the four weeks (Fig. 1 B).

Model 3, with a classification accuracy of 0.63, reached marginal significance, t (48) = 1.91, p = 0.063, Cohen’s d = 0.27, however, 1000 permutation p = 0.03 and an AUC of 0.59, indicating that the accuracy was significantly higher than the random level.

~46–50%), but at the marginal significance ( p = 0.063) (when we consider the US recommendations of 0.80 g/kg body mass, it was, respectively, ~60% vs. ~45%, p = 0.045).

In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference between the rapid PAP and black rice extract staining methods ( p =0.974), and marginal significance was found for the difference between black rice extract and SpermBlue ( p =0.063).

Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and surgery severity showed that before surgery blood glucose may be an independent predictor of mortality with marginal significance ( P = 0.063) and likewise with postoperative blood glucose concentration ( P = 0.087).

Chronic pain was negatively associated with IC scores, achieving statistical significance in the Medium-stable Group ( Coe =-0.032, P <0.001) and marginal significance in the Low-decreased Group ( Coe =-0.022 P =0.063), though no significant association was found in the High-increased Group ( Coe =-0.003, P =0.774).

PR status reached marginal significance (HR=2.34, 95%CI: 0.96- 5.73, p=0.063).

Combination therapy showed a 10% decrease in liver fat, the greatest reduction among the groups, albeit with marginal significance for the three-group difference ( p = 0.063) (Table 2 ).

It was estimated that the disease-free survival was different according to the preoperative PNI with a marginal significance [≤48.85: 21.75 months (95% CI, 19.03−24.4) vs. >48.85: 51.88 months (95% CI, 43.10−60.66), p = 0.0633, Fig 2A ].