“marginally non-significant”

The same trend, even though marginally non-significant ( p = .05), was observed for healthcare assistants, who were 2.48 times more likely than TRP to receive the diagnosis.

However, for l -leucine, there was a marginally non-significant difference in the detection threshold between oxygen concentrations ( n =8, F 2,18 =3.74, P =0.05).

Contrary to expectations that synapsids would follow a consistently optimal path toward a more therian morphology, our results based on reconstructed landscapes for major nodes show statistically significant fluctuations in optimality across the major synapsid groups (with marginally non-significant effects of centroid size; RPPP ANOVA, p < 0.05, see S7 Table ).

The association of hookworm infection with HIV status was marginally non-significant (p = 0.05).

Results Immune Priming and Serratia Marcescens Infections For Experiment 1 ( Figure 1A, B ), the minimal model indicated a marginally non-significant interaction between aphid genotype, pre-exposure, and infection treatment upon second challenge (p = 0.05), which is reflected by the somewhat different responses of the two aphid genotypes (5A0, LSR1) to pre-exposure and subsequent live bacterial challenge ( Figure 1A,B ).

Longer REM sleep duration showed a similar trend, although marginally non-significant (B = −0.02; OR = 0.98; p = 0.05), implying that REM architecture may modulate bruxism expression, potentially through its effect on arousal thresholds and muscle activation.

Some support for this contention comes from the fact that there was a marginally non-significant negative correlation between proportion of short-delay choices and mean log-latency to initiate trials on illumination of the amber light ( r 27 = − 0.37, p = 0.05).

In addition, post-earthquake mean maximum temperature and pre-earthquake mean rain days had a marginally non-significant association (p = 0.05 – 0.10).

Results ApEn and PE values in different anesthesia-awakening stages For ApEn values, ANOVA analysis ( Table 1 ) revealed significant main effects for the factors “stage” ( F 2,24 = 25.127; p = 0.000; partial η 2 = 0.677) and “sex” ( F 1,12 = 5.033; p = 0.045; partial η 2 = 0.295) but marginally non-significant effect for the factor “brain area” ( F 5,60 = 2.373; p = 0.050; partial η 2 = 0.165), but no significant interaction between factors was observed.

Although the comparison between P-fed sNPF 1 bees and P-fed untreated bees was marginally non-significant ( Figure 2 B, W = 174.5, p = 0.05), a clear enhancement of appetitive responsiveness was detected in P-fed sNPF 10 bees.

This finding is also consistent with the observation that people with TRS who were hospitalised during FEP had TRS earlier than those who were not hospitalised during FEP ( Kanahara et al., 2018 ), although these differences were marginally non-significant ( p = 0.050).

scintillans may be driven by a marginally non-significant increase from Ambient, to ERCP 6.0, to ERCP 8.5, in the proportion of diatoms within the phytoplankton community (LRT, df 86, P = 0.05, n = 3).

The DASS-21 subscale for stress was used and the results indicate that use of the PsyCovidApp could be correlated with a marginally non-significant reduction in the stress score (MD: 0.06; CI: −0.14–0.01; p = 0.05).

The change of the binding potential in the left putamen ( r = 0.64, p = 0.01) had a marginally non-significant stronger ( z = 1.57, p -value = 0.05) correlation with externalizing symptoms than the change of the binding potential of the right putamen ( r = 0.17, p = 0.58).

As shown in Table 10 , the Gray test yielded a marginally non-significant P = 0.050 (unrounded P = 0.0501 ), suggesting insufficient evidence for prognostic differences among subtypes.

Wasps were also more abundant by a marginally non-significant amount in yellow traps compared with white traps (t 7.0 = 2.93, p = 0.05).

For GIPR rs10423928, we observed a marginally non-significant interaction with olive oil ( p = 0.050) (Table 2 ).

From pre-test (study entry) to post-test (end of study), there was no significant change in CES-D score (Wilcoxon p -value = 0.13), BAI score (Wilcoxon p -value = 0.50), TPS score (Wilcoxon p-value = 0.15), while CASE-cancer score decreased from pre- to post-test, marginally non-significant (Wilcoxon p-value = 0.05) (Fig. 2 a).

The variables examined were: aerobic capacity for exercise, lung function, anxiety and depression, with non-significant improvement for the MRC Dyspnea scale, marginally non-significant improvement regarding 6MWT ( p = 0.05) and significant improvement for FEV1 ( p < 0.05).

The pooled MD between the experimental and control groups was −1.57 (95% CI: −3.16, 0.02), with a marginally non-significant overall effect ( Z = 1.94, p = 0.05).

20.80 ± 2.55), the difference was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.050).

Further, when patients were dichotomized based on the disease control rate (“DCR”), a significantly longer OS was exhibited in the disease control compared to no-disease control group according to PERCIST (p = 0.01), PERCIMT (p = 0.01) and iPERCIST (p = 0.01), while a similar, marginally non-significant trend was also observed after application of EORTC (p = 0.05).

The Wilcoxon test showed that the difference in FSS-7 score was marginally non-significant (p = 0.05, effect size = 0.37).

While subgroup analysis revealed a marginally non-significant effect in the subacute phase (MD = 0.88; p = 0.05) and a non-significant effect in the chronic phase, the test for subgroup differences was not significant ( p = 0.91), suggesting comparable benefits regardless of recovery stage.

However, this difference was marginally non-significant (P=.05) Finally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted on the scores obtained by the participants, including sex and age as variables.