“marginal significance”

Statistically significant differences are found in two of the five factors: Influence of the Performance Evaluation ( p = 0.030; d = −0.389) and Mental Skills ( p = 0.030; d = −0.788); and there is a marginal significance in Stress Control ( p = 0.083; d = −0.234).

The HLA-OWMM group was younger than the control group, with marginal significance (28 years [IQR, 25–34 years] vs. 35 years [IQR, 26–47 years]; P=0.083).

The marginal significance of the interaction term (F = 1.825; p = 0.083) suggests that there is only weak evidence that these methods differ in their preservation ability over time.

Neurologic disease subgroups showed marginal significance (OR = 0.536, p = 0.083).

There was no significant difference between SSRTs for stimuli which appeared after neutral pictures ( M = .26, SD = .06) and SSRTs for stimuli which appeared after either negative pictures or no pictures ( p > .05), although a marginal significance was found for the difference between SSRTs for stimuli which appeared after neutral pictures and negative pictures ( p = .083, see Fig 5 ).

Analysis of simple effects revealed a significant difference between morphine and saline groups when the solution concentration was 2.5% [ F (1, 97) = 6.13, P < 0.05], as well as a marginal significance between Morphine-4% and Saline-4% groups [ F (1, 97) = 3.07, P = 0.083].

In addition, compared to the overall correlation across the 104 participants, the correlation indeed appeared stronger when only the cost-first-dominated participants were included, which reached marginal significance when the number of participants included was between 54 and 60 (cluster-based permutation test, p = .083) or between 65 and 72 ( p = .081).

The diameter of stent-graft and discontinuation of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet treatment was found to risk factor with marginal significance in univariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.194; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.031–1.239; P = 0.083 and HR, 7.778; 95% CI, 0.795–76.088; P = 0.090).

MATH score decreased with marginal significance after CRT (average: 37.06 vs. 32.90, paired Wilcoxon signed rank test p = 0.083).

The incidence of CM was higher among Jewish than Arab women in the age group of 25–29 years, although this difference only reached marginal significance (10 vs. 4 per 10,000, p = 0.083, one-sided 0.054).

For career control, the group × time interaction was not significant and the main effect of group was marginal significance [ F (2, 78) = 2.564, p = 0.083, Partial η 2 = 0.062].

A marginal significance was observed between adequate appendicular SMI and reduced risk of MAFLD (OR[95%CI]: 0.61 [0.36~1.03], P = 0.083).

Additionally, the interaction effect reached marginal significance, F (3,44) = 2.37, p = .083, and η 2 = .03.

The age variable demonstrated marginal significance in the linear model ( β = −0.091, p = 0.083), with a negative coefficient suggesting that effects may decrease with increasing age.

The HR was attenuated in model 4 with a marginal significance; the HRs (95% CIs) were 0.71 (0.47–1.05) ( p = 0.084) and 0.73 (0.51–1.05) ( p = 0.084) for the 2 to <7 cups/week and 7 to <12 cups/week categories, respectively.

Younger group showed significantly higher scores in anxiety and depression ( P = 0.084, marginal significance) than older group.

Interestingly, 5-mm corneal irregularity indices were significantly less in the DALK group than in the PKP group at 1-year follow-up ( p = 0.021, Mann-Whitney test), however, there was only marginal significance at final follow-up ( p = 0.084, Mann-Whitney test) ( Table 3 and Fig. 1 ).

7%, marginal significance at p = 0.084).

Prediction of breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality (stages I–III) Joint analysis of patients with curable breast cancer (stages I–III) demonstrated a main effect of depression on all-cause mortality but not on breast-cancer specific mortality, such that depression at the time of cancer diagnosis increased hazards of all-cause mortality by 50 % compared to non-depressed patients (HR = 1.54 (95 % CI 1.06–2.25), p = 0.024) while the effect on breast cancer-specific mortality demonstrated an effect of similar magnitude which, however, only reached marginal significance (HR = 1.51 (95 % CI 0.95–2.41), p = 0.084) (see Table 2 and Fig. 1 ).

This occurred in conditions when an incidental cue was presented in the first position ( t (19) = 3.7, p = 0.001, Figure 2A ), or second position (marginal significance, t (19) = 1.8, p = 0.084, Figure 2B ) or when two cues of the same color were presented ( t (19) = 2.27, p = 0.035, Figure 2C ).

Since a correlation analysis showed only a trend for females with marginal significance ( n = 60, r = 0.2251, p = 0.084), our data set might still be too small for drawing definite conclusions.

The latter trend held true for the second data set with marginal significance for the continuous measure of accuracy as well ( r = -0.312, t 19 = 1.43, p = 0.084).

Analysis of change in the variables revealed significance for ΔPV 100 and ΔPD 90 ( F -test, p = 0.014 and < 0.001, respectively), and ΔPV 150 and ΔUD 30 showed marginal significance ( p = 0.084 and 0.097, respectively).

This previous study indicated a slightly elevated risk of delirium with oseltamivir use in patients under 18 during the 2006/2007-influenza season with marginal significance (hazard ratio: 1.51, 95% CI lower: 0.95, upper: 2.40, p = 0.084).

Other fractures had a marginal significance ( P =0.0849).