The overall regression model slope, corresponding to the oviposition day, was significantly different from zero when the DsRedEx1 males acted as first mate ( z = 11.87, P < 2e-16), whereas marginally non-significant when the tGFP1 males acted as first mate ( z = 1.798, P = 0.0722).
In the entire cohort, the combined use of sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1 improved discrimination by ~3.5% (p = 0.0002) but in the NGT individuals this improvement was ~1.5% which was marginally non-significant (p = 0.0729).
The overall test for slope differences among the three groups was marginally non-significant ( p = .073; Figure 2D ).
Wing length in group-reared larvae The effect of Asaia exposure on female wing length was marginally non-significant (F 2, 409 = 2.64, p = 0.073) ( Fig 4 ).
In the multivariable model (predictors: BMI, TMI, HGB, HCT, NLR, PLR), HCT was a significant negative predictor of adiposity ( β = −0.34, p = 0.021), whereas TMI showed a positive but marginally non-significant association ( β = 0.25, p = 0.073).
The log-rank test yielded a marginally non-significant difference between groups ( p = 0.073), with a hazard ratio of 1.3, indicating a trend towards reduced survival associated with elevated TOP2A expression in SKCM.
In the 50 m zone, a marginally non-significant effect was only found in Iceland (estimate = 7.57, 95% CI = -0.49–15.65, p = 0.073).
When individuals were grouped by altitude levels (see Table 2 and “ Methods ” section), isolation by altitude distance was significant for the Northern ( p value = 0.00605) and marginally non-significant for the Southern hillside ( p value = 0.07345).
The Values of Naturalness (LDVSs) increased from the city centre to the rural areas, although the correlation was marginally non-significant (r s = 0.533, p = 0.074) ( Figure 1 b, Table 1 ).
This implies a marginally non-significant tendency for an uphill orientation to be more common than a downhill one (binomial distribution test, one-tailed binomial test, P = 0.074).
afzelii the decrease with increasing elevation was marginally non-significant (Elevation 2 : χ 2 1 = 3.19, P = 0.074; Elevation: χ 2 1 = 3.39, P = 0.066; Fig. 2 c).
In the speed group, there was evidence of second-order conditioning, F (1, 37) = 4.65, p = .038, with higher ratings to BX than to BE, while conditioned inhibition in the accuracy group was marginally non-significant, F (1, 39) = 3.38, p = .074, with lower ratings to BX than to BE (see Figure 5 ).
The direct effect of Network on Intention was positive but marginally non-significant [ β = .08, p = .074, 95% CI (-.01,.16)].
The decline in aerobic scope was driven by a marginally non-significant decline of maximum oxygen consumption rates in the high and extreme high p CO 2 treatments (ANOVA, F 3 , 28 = 2.574, P = 0.074) and no significant difference in routine oxygen uptake rates (ANOVA, F 3 , 28 = 0.850, P = 0.479) across the p CO 2 treatments ( S4 Fig ).
A similar, but marginally non-significant (estimate: − 0.149 ± 0.076; t value = − 1.952; P = 0.074; R 2 = 0.241) relationship was found considering the MP contamination expressed as MPs/m 2 (data not shown).
Permissive parenting showed a marginally non-significant negative association with spiritual growth (B = −0.04, β = −0.07, p = 0.074).
pomorum produced a marginally non-significant effect (p = 0.0745) (Fig. 3 b).
The difference between the F1 pure Norwegian offspring and the Icelandic birds was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.075), as was the difference between the F1-hybrids and the Icelandic population ( p = 0.067).
The difference between the hot and cold regime tended to be greater at 35 °C, although the two-way interaction between regime and assay temperature was marginally non-significant (F 2, 11.9 = 3.25, P = 0.075, Fig. 5A ).
This difference was significant for the comparisons with mbees_mbrood, as well as with xbees_cbrood (χ 2 = 20.7 and 7.3; p <0.001 and 0.007), while it was marginally non-significant in the case of xbees_mbrood (χ 2 = 3.2; p = 0.075).
Results The prevalence of LTBI was 50.5% (95% CI: 46%, 55%) with no significant gender difference (49.8% among males versus 51.2% among females; Chi-square (χ 2 ) = 0.10; P = 0.41) and marginally non-significant increasing trends with age (44.6% among those below 24 years and 59.7% in the age range of 45-64 years; χ 2 = 6.91; P = 0.075).
Results about the risk factors for PH development in CAD-HF remained stable in the random effect model, except for factor of treatment with nitrate which showed marginally non-significant ( P = 0.075; Supplementary Table 2).
In the bivariable analysis, we observed a lower risk (marginally non-significant) of COVID-19 among males as compared to females (Crude Odds Ratio (COR): 0.59 (95%CI: 0.33, 1.05), p-value = 0.075) and among those who reported a headache compared to those who did not (COR: 0.34 (95%CI: 0.08, 0.98), p-value = 0.08) ( Table 2 ).
There was also a marginally non-significant effect of the interaction between male and female selection regime on the proportion of matings resisted ( χ 2 = 3.169, P = 0.075).
However, there was a marginally non-significant interaction between valence and prevalence (Fig. 1 : LRT = − 2.294, p = 0.075) and a significant interaction between valence and task-specificity (Fig. 1 : LRT = 2.753, p = 0.021).