“marginal significance”

Compared with the control ones, Tph2 +/+ AR (Figure 3A , LSD post-hoc t-tests , rat-exposure: P = 0.007; rat scent-exposure: P = 0.016), ERα (Figure 3A , LSD post-hoc t-tests , rat-exposure: P = 0.000; rat scent-exposure: P = 0.000) and GluR4 (Figure 3A , LSD post-hoc t-tests , rat-exposure: P = 0.016; rat scent-exposure: P = 0.073, marginal significance) expression were down-regulated.

A subsequent analysis showed that participants also tended to miss out more often on reward payout in the high than in the low reward condition, although the difference in number of trials quicker than the RT limit did only reach marginal significance, t (17) = 1.908, p = 0.073, 95% CI [−0.89, 17.66].

Additionally, DM had marginal significance ( P = .073).

On the other hand, belotecan was associated with improved OS with marginal significance in the ITT population (median 31.5 versus 22.9 months, P = 0.073), with the relation becoming stronger in the PP population (median 39.7 versus 26.6 months; P = 0.034).

Univariable logistic regression modeling with GSK3α/β as independent variables revealed distinct predictive capacities: Comparative analysis showed GSK3α moderately predicted bone marrow blast percentage >20% (OR = 2.64, 95% CI 1.34–5.20; p = 0.005), while exhibiting marginal significance in peripheral blood blast prediction (p = 0.073) ( Table 1 ).

There was a marginal significance in the three-way interaction between Electrodes, Determiner Type, and Grammaticality ( F (2, 70) = 3.038, p = 0.073, η p 2 = 0.080), indicating that the RDP condition at Pz showed a significant P600 effect ( p = 0.048), whereas the QDP condition did not.

Simple effects analyses by Trial Type revealed that this interaction was driven by a the effect of Condition that reached marginal significance in the R2 repetition lag, F (1.21, 15.69) = 3.54, p = 0.073, η p 2 = 0.214.

Subgroup analysis of studies with sample size > 300 observed a low PNI was associated with a higher risk for IVIG resistance, but this association was only at a marginal significance with the random‐effect model analysis (OR = 1.08, p = 0.073) (Table 3 ).

Additionally, there was a marginal significance between Load 1 and Load 4 ( t (61) = 2.778, p = 0.073, Cohen's d = 0.259), and the other conditions showed a trend of becoming more negative with increasing load, but there were no statistical differences ( ts < 2.236, ps > 0.291, Cohen's d < 0.188).

NO 3 − exhibited marginal significance for the number of edges ( r = 0.070, p = 0.074) and average degree ( r = 0.069, p = 0.063) ( Table S7 ).

Besides these, treatment modality as a clinically relevant factor with marginal significance ( p = 0.074) in univariate analysis was also introduced into the Cox multivariate model.

The interaction effect between social comparison, outcome and electrode reached marginal significance ( F (3.43,68.53) = 2.325; p = 0.074).

The expression of TRAF6 (either strongly positive or weakly positive) in patients showed a trend towards poorer CSS when compared with patients without TRAF6 expression and the effect achieved marginal significance ( p = 0.074) in patients with well differentiated tumors (Fig. 6c–f ).

Logistic regression modeling revealed trends toward a marginal significance in the percentage of Treg change from baseline to 60 days post‐HPE in the Good Outcome group (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09‐1.12; P = 0.074) and a change from baseline to 90 days post‐HPE in NK cell CD69 expression (OR, 7.87; 95% CI, 0.69‐90.04; P = 0.097).

After adding age, education, marital status, and smoking status as covariates in the further ANCOVA, the group differences remained significant on performance in immediate memory, delayed memory, language, as well as total scores of RBANS (all p < .05), and a marginal significance on performance in attention ( p = .074).

Besides, the main effects of group and stimulus type were significant, F (1,32) = 5.81 and 69.89, p = 0.022 and 0.000, η 2 p = 0.155 and 0.685, respectively, and interactions of group × stimulus type and stimulus type × emotion reached marginal significance, F (1,32) = 3.41 and 3.27, p = 0.074 and 0.080, η 2 p = 0.093 and 0.095, respectively.

Pigs fed formaldehyde-treated diets had marginal significance (3.75 ± 0.53, 2.94 ± 0.53; P = 0.074) for lower percentages of S24-7 bacteria species than pigs fed non-formaldehyde treated diets.

We observed no statistically significant changes in mutation count from baseline to last follow-up in any other genes examined, although a marginal significance threshold for increased mutation count was observed for RAD21 ( P = .074).

In our experience, the use of a uterine manipulator showed marginal significance for contributing factor of PFS in the univariate analysis (p=0.074).

Unexpectedly, the prognosis of 8th edition N2a was better than that of 7th edition N1 and N2, with marginal significance ( P = 0.074 for N1, P = 0.033 for N2).

For E2, we found that children with detectable serum E2 levels (≥8 pg/mL) had higher [reaching marginal significance (P = 0.074)] daily intake of DEHP-tainted foods than those with non-detectable serum E2 levels (<8 pg/mL) (median (IQR) daily intake (mg/kg/day): 0.050 (0.021–0.091) vs. 0.006 (0–0.044), Figure 2b ).

In a further multivariate analysis, both older age and higher VAT SUVmax were associated with early AMD, though with marginal significance ( p = 0.074 and p = 0.056, respectively; Table 3 ).

However, the pathway where IBD activity influenced control through self-efficacy and subsequently self-management behavior showed only marginal significance ( P = 0.074).

Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that positive groups of p53, PD-L1 in TCs and TAICs had a worse overall survival and a worse progression-free survival as compared with the negative groups, but marginal significance was found only in overall survival of PD-L1 in TCs and TAICs, and progression-free survival of PD-L1 in TAICs ( P =0.074, 0.097, 0.068, respectively).

7.0%, respectively, P = 0.282), and MP tended to have a greater concern about the uncertainty of new technology than LP with marginal significance (19.0% vs . 12.0%, P = 0.074).