“marginally insignificant”

There was a marginally insignificant effect of HW treatment ( p = 0.066, linear mixed model, F = 4.42 on 2 and 6 degrees of freedom), with a trend toward lower growth rates in the double‐HW treatment.

For the Sonadura Old population, only the regression of numbers on time was significant ( P = 0.013), while the regression of abundance on temperature was marginally insignificant ( P = 0.067).

No significant difference in the overall survivin expression was found between the posterior regenerate at any stage of re-growth and the intact digestive tube (p ≥ 0.2269) (Figure 9B ), whereas the anterior regenerate shows a marginally insignificant increase in survivin mRNA level on days 7 (p = 0.067) and 14 (p = 0.073), which becomes a significant (p = 0.037) three-fold increase by day 21 after evisceration (Figure 9A ).

The difference between the normal hearing loss group and the mild hearing loss group (M = 22.2) was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.067).

2 ), there were significant negative correlations with baseline serum levels of S1P (r = −0.485, P = 0.038) and dihydroS1P (r = −0.489, P = 0.034) with a negative, but marginally insignificant correlation observed for ahCer (r = −0.449, P = 0.067).

There was also increase in mRNA expression of BMP-2 at week 4 but it was marginally insignificant (p = 0.068).

Although ΦST and Jost’s D values show low levels of differentiation for Mc1r; the P-values are just marginally insignificant (ΦST = 0.006 p = 0.068 D j = 0.079, p = .066).

Secondary sensitivity analyses (Supplementary Table S1) including only patients with type 2 and 3 IF did not change the significant differences within groups, except for differences in IV supplementation of magnesium sulphate becoming marginally insignificant ( P = .068).

The OR for pre-HTN was only marginally insignificant, 2.54 [(0.93–6.9), p = 0.068], in those having SSD of ≤6.5 h/n, compared to those having SD of >6.5 h/n, when adjusted for the above-stated influential variables.

While a marginally insignificant reduction in the population density of the superior competitor by its phage was observed (Figure 1e–h ; F 1,90 = 3.381, P = 0.069), the population density of the weaker competitor was significantly increased in the presence of phage infecting the superior competitor ( F 1,90 = 4.484, P = 0.037).

Marginally insignificant treatment × session interactions ( E : F 4, 52 = 2.32, p < 0.069; D : F 4, 52 = 2.54, p < 0.051) reflected a trend toward hyperlocomotion and poorer avoidance after the higher dose of MK-801 specifically in session 1.

Unexpectedly, quality of care was marginally insignificant (p=0.069).

The same was true for the terrestrial seeds ( p < 0.005), except that the difference in the percent germination between G1 and G2 was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.07).

The Egger’s test for publication bias was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.07), indicating no evidence of publication bias within included studies.

Furthermore, this group contained the highest percentage of ever smokers (81.5%); however, this was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.070).

The lung V8 had the lowest P value in the univariate analysis; therefore, it was included in the multivariate analysis and remained marginally insignificant for early survival (HR, 1.03; P = .07) but was not correlated with long-term survival (HR, 1.00; P = .85) or whole survival (HR, 1.02; P = .12) ( Table 3 ).

paradoxa was used as an outgroup to polarize the direction of mutations the trend was similar but marginally insignificant (Nicaragua, deleterious/total = 0.268; Jamaica, deleterious/total = 0.242; Brazil, deleterious/total = 0.225, χ 2 = 5.27, P = 0.07).

The pooled effect size of studies using NCEP-ATP-III criteria was marginally insignificant (SMD: 5.978, 95% CI: -0.616 to 12.573, I 2 = 99.813, p = 0.07).

In addition, the changes between the two groups were significant for TG ( p = .02), and marginally insignificant for HDL‐C ( p = .07).

The Kruskal-Wallis test was marginally insignificant ( P = 0.070), but the nonparametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test corroborated Tukey’s test results showing that, on average, proliferating cells were twice as abundant in the second segment as in the terminal segment (Wilcoxon’s test P = 0.036).

Out of the HSP genes examined, HSPA2 and DNAJB6 were not found to show any expression differences between body condition states, although HSPA2 showed a 1.6-fold change but was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.07).

The difference in gluteus maximus density was only marginally insignificant (p=0.07).

RORAv5 was marginally insignificant ( P = 0.07).

Yet, transmission of CHIKV by mosquitoes first infected with ZIKV was marginally insignificant ( p = 0.07) (ZC; 67.9% transmitting) compared to mosquitoes first provided an uninfectious blood meal (UC; 42.9% transmitting) 12 days after the second blood meal.

The mean daily steps walked in the experimental group ( n = 23; 10,206 steps) was 26.5% greater than that of the control group ( n = 21; 8,068 steps) but the difference was marginally insignificant [adjusted mean difference (95% CI): 2,138 (−137, 4,411), P = 0.07].