“marginal significance”

Bt treatments also led to an increase in CFU count, but the effect was at the marginal significance level (F 1.16 = 3.6, p = 0.07).

1 For adult depression/anxiety, the overall model was significant in Block 1 (χ 2 (df = 5) = 235.68, p < .001, Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.103) and addition of interactions in Block 2 showed only marginal significance in improving the model, (χ 2 (df = 4) = 8.80, p = .07).

The baseline log-transformed FGF21 level was inversely associated with GV with marginal significance (β = −0.64, P = 0.070).

The emotion-by-diagnosis ANOVA confirmed the effect of diagnosis ( p < 0.001) with the poorest performance in patients with BD-I relative to those with BD-II and HC (all p ’s < 0.001), and showed the effect of emotion [ F (1, 84) = 31.02, p < 0.001] with the poorest performance for sadness relative to neutral [ t (84) = 5.57, p < 0.001], and a marginal significance for their interaction [ F (2, 84) = 2.68, p = 0.07] with planned comparisons showing Bonferroni-corrected significance for FER-sadness vs FER-neutral difference comparing patients with BD-I [ F (2, 84) = 4.081, p < 0.001] with HC [ F (2, 84) = 4.226, p < 0.001] but not with patients with BD-II [ F (2, 84) = 1.433, p = 0.156] (see Fig. 2 ).

We tested the hypothesis that improved reasoning leads to improved answer selection, after controlling for assessment, and found marginal significance ( F (2,20) = 3.09, p = 0.07).

The odds of this probable kleptoparasitism occurring at a cougar-killed elk site were 6.8 times greater than a cougar-killed deer site, again with marginal significance ( P = 0.07; SI Appendix , Table S6 and A ).

The only exception was executive function delay/impairment at age 6 which was reduced to marginal significance (mild white matter abnormality OR = 2.8, moderate-to-severe white matter abnormality OR = 5.3, p = .07).

GM/WM border effacement showed a marginal significance ( ρ = −0.25, p = 0.07).

Although in the expected direction, this change reached only marginal significance ( t (45) = 1.86, p = .07).

Importantly, the expression of miR-31 showed inverse relationship with STMN1 expression in the same set of samples with marginal significance ( P = 0.07).

treated groups compared to controls to day 24 showed marginal significance (between subject effects p < 0.07 and p < 0.09 respectively).

The only predictor that approached marginal significance was current mental health service use ( p = .07), with a higher percentage of clients in the 5-week course not receiving treatment (71.9 %) compared to the other courses. 4.2.

However, FCN prophylaxis reduced the incidence of HHV6 encephalitis in the low-steroid group with marginal significance (HR 0.22, P=0.070).

The effectiveness of the formulae was not statistically significant, except for Keigai-rengyo-to, which worsened general fatigue by a marginal significance ( P = .07). 3.4.

However, when entered into our regression models, this predictor had no significant effect on either perceived arousal (F (1, 217.67) = 0.79, p = .38) or dominance (F (1, 218.79) = 0.59, p = .44) and only achieved marginal significance with regard to perceived valence (F (1, 218.43) = 3.32, p = .07), indicating that female posters (EMM = 3.62, SE = 0.16) tended to be perceived as feeling slightly more positive than male posters (EMM = 3.43, SE = 0.18), albeit not within a conventional level of significance.

Intronic rs12505266 of CLOCK was significantly associated with an increased predisposition to breast cancer among recessive homozygous genotypes OR = 1.22 (0.83–1.79), p = 0.057 and at marginal significance under a recessive genetic model OR = 1.38 (0.97–1.96), p = 0.07.

A post hoc Tukey test showed that the category types “Good Morning”, “Celebration”, “YTT Story”, “Tips”, and “Quote” within the subgroup differed with marginal significance at p = 0.07.

OCN upregulated Pdk1 at both mRNA and protein levels while upregulated Ldha protein level of a marginal significance ( P = 0.070) (Fig. 5E–G ).

Genetically predicted brain HKDC1 protein abundance conferred a potentially protective effect against AD, with marginal significance in a meta‐analysis of two independent AD GWAS datasets (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.23–1.12; p = 0.07) (Figure 1A,B ).

This study has limitations, including the small cohort size and lack of a control group, which reduce statistical power and generalizability, increase the risk of Type II error, and may lead to overinterpretation of trends with marginal significance (e.g., p = 0.07).

Maternal education (OR: 1.56 (95% CI: 0.98–2.46); p = 0.057), was marginally significant and was included in the multivariate analysis; additionally low birth weight showed marginal significance (OR: 2.90 (95% CI: 1.12–7.44); p = 0.07), however the large number of missing values for birth weight (19.2% missing) and paternal age (10.9% missing) reduced the potential value as predictive factors and were therefore not included in the multivariate analysis.

There was a marginal significance difference between the groups ( P = 0.07).

Despite the marginal significance of the difference, a superior OS was observed in the adjuvant CCRT group (5-year: 37.9% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.07), and in subgroup analysis, adjuvant CCRT increased the OS rate of patients with multiple N2 (p = 0.02).

A marginal significance (0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.07) is indicated by a symbol in parentheses. 3.

Right medial superior frontal cortices showed higher HbR for recalling of the novel faces than same faces (ch 27, paired t-test, FDR corrected p-value = 0.07, marginal significance) while higher HbR for recalling of same faces was observed in left medial superior frontal cortex (ch 7, paired t-test, FDR corrected p-value = 0.07, marginal significance).