“marginally significant”

We detected a significant excess of variants in two of the pathways in CVID patients when compared to controls: Fc epsilon RI signaling and cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction pathways ( P < 0.001 and 0.002, respectively), plus two other marginally significant pathways after applying multiple test correction: cytosolic-DNA sensing, and NFKB signaling ( P = 0.002 and 0.001, respectively).

In the EUR GWAS for Aβ, we found that rs76490923 had a marginally significant association (beta = −0.1240, SE = 0.0404, p = 2.20 × 10 −3 ) with Aβ in EUR population. rs76490923 was associated with decreased Aβ levels and exhibited the same effect directionality (beta coefficient, −0.1240 [EUR] vs. −0.1661 [EAS]) as in our EAS GWAS results (Fig. 2 ).

Significant negative concordance was also identified between the social disinhibition behaviour symptom cluster and the thalamus (Table 2 , p = 1 × 10 −3 ) as well as marginally significant negative concordance with the accumbens ( p = 2.3 × 10 −3 ) and positive concordance with the pallidum ( p = 0.47 × 10 −2 ).

The results demonstrated that MX2 displayed the most significant eQTL with rs398206 ( P = 6.6e−15; linear regression), while none of the other genes in the TAD displayed even a marginally significant eQTL after adjusting for multiple testing (Bonferroni-corrected cutoff at P < 0.0024 for 21 genes; Supplementary Table 9 ).

A smaller cluster in the symmetric region was marginally significant (Table 2 ). 3.4 Correlation analysis Significance for correlation analysis was determined as p < .0025 (0.05/20 for Bonferroni correction considering five clinical parameters and four stages) for each cluster.

The model indicated a significant increase in mutation frequency with age in blood, a marginally significant increase in saliva, and no difference in oocytes ( Z test P = 2.7 × 10 −3 , P = 5.7 × 10 −2 , and P = 0.688 for blood, saliva, and oocytes, respectively; Fig. 1B and table S4).

We also found significant and marginally significant correlations between ERCC1 and ACTL6A expressions after 50% ( p = 0.003) and 100% ( p = 0.06) CCRT, respectively, among the HNC patients, which supports the hypothesis of ACTL6A-mediated NER activation.

However, there was a marginally significant trend towards an inverse association between the achieved 25(OH)D level with 24-hour systolic BP (−0.196 per ng/mL 25(OH)D, 95% CI (−0.325 to −0.067); p = 0.003).

Marginally significant associations were found with FEV 1 and FVC (p = 0.003 and p = 0.008, respectively) in one of the family-based cohorts, but these associations were not significant after correcting for multiple comparisons.

Out of all the service member characteristics used to predict Family Study survey response, only the interaction term for children and recruitment group was marginally significant after Bonferroni alpha adjustment ( p < .003; .05/15).

Repeated-measures ANOVA of 3 (social priming group: others inclusion, friend exclusion, stranger exclusion) × 2 (stimulus type: Go, Nogo) on the amplitudes of the N270 components in the frontal region evoked by the Go/Nogo task found that: The main effect of social priming group was marginally significant F (2, 85) = 6.06, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.125, the main effect of stimulus type was not significant F (1, 85) = 1.39, p = 0.242, and the interaction between them was not significant F (2, 85) = 1.21, p = 0.304.

The 12- and 14-repeat alleles exhibited significant associations with p values of 5.66 × 10 −5 and 3.40 × 10 −5 , respectively, while the 15-repeat allele was marginally significant ( p = 0.003) (Table 1 ).

We found a significant indirect effect of the trust in the government on attitudes toward vaccines (TTG → PSS → vaccine attitudes), b = −0.05, z = −2.44, p = 0.01, a significant “a” component (TTG → PSS), b = −0.26, z = −4.35, p < 0.001, and a marginally significant “b” component (PSS → vaccine attitudes), b = 0.22, z = 2.94, p = 0.003.

Straylight did not correlate significantly with BSCVA at baseline ( r = 0.06, p = 0.7), but correlated significantly at three and 6 months and was marginally significant at 12 months ( r = 0.47, p = 0.003; and r = 0.50, p = 0.003; and r = 0.3, p = 0.09; respectively).

We found a significant difference only for the physical training group and a marginally significant difference between pre- and post-training correlation values for the audiovisual experience group (physical training group: z = 2.96; p = 0.003; audiovisual experience group: z = 1.98; p = 0.048; auditory experience group: z = 0.97; p = 0.3297).

The same pattern was shown about the estimate of avoidance, with a marginally significant difference between clinician-assisted and waitlist groups in avoidance ( p < 0.003), but not between clinician-assisted and self-guided, or self-guided and waitlist conditions ( p > 0.05).

In addition, there was a significant interaction between Duration and Intensity, F (1, 42) = 8.7, p = .005, ηp2 = .17, due to a significant difference between the high and low magnitudes in the high intensity light bulb conditions in comparison to a marginally significant difference in the low intensity light bulb conditions (10.8, p = 0.003, vs. 8.9 seconds, p = 0.06, respectively).

There was no significant difference between F IS and F e in short-lived species (16 cases with F IS < F e , compared to 10 with F IS > F e , P = 0.33), in contrast to herbaceous perennial species that present a marginally significant trend (23 cases with F IS < F e , compared to 11 with F IS > F e , P = 0.057) and woody species that present a significant trend (55 cases with F IS < F e , compared to 27 with F IS > F e , P = 0.003).

The interaction between Emotion and Question was marginally significant [ F 1 (2,118) = 6.41, p < 0.003, η 2 = 0.01; F 2 (2,36) = 1.82, p < 0.18, η 2 = 0.01], as the effect of Emotion type was largest for the innateness question Δ = 1.37 (for the face and body questions, Δ = 1.08 and Δ = 0.89, respectively).

An exploratory analysis indicated a marginally significant inverse association between achieved 25(OH)D levels and 24-h SBP ( p = 0.003), but this finding should be interpreted cautiously due to small subgroup sizes and post hoc design [ 120 ].

One-way ANOVA results exhibited a marginally significant interaction between experimental diets in terms of essential amino acids (F (3,8) = 11.371, P = 0.003), nonessential amino acids (F (3,8) = 0.407, P = 0.752), and overall amino acid pools (essential plus nonessential) (F (3,8) = 7.355, P = 0.011).

On days when participants felt lonelier than usual, they were more likely to forget meetings (OR = 1.07, p=.052), although this effect was marginally significant; moreover, forgetting meetings predicted higher loneliness the next day (b = 4.2, p=.003).

37 The burden of de novo missense variants is also higher in constrained genes compared to non-constrained genes (fold = 1.57 versus 1.22), although it is marginally significant in both constrained and non-constrained gene sets (p = 3.3 × 10 −3 and 0.045, respectively).

The insert tab task was marginally significant in predicting trial duration, F (22,1) = 10.2, p = 0.004, R 2 = 0.33, β = 2 seconds.

In the main cohort study, there were significant or marginally significant differences between the three groups in age [F(2,159) = 5.76, p = 0.004], gender [χ 2 (2) = 6.74, p = 0.034], and living situation [χ 2 (2) = 5.76, p = 0.056].