“marginally significant”

The main effect of speed was marginally significant ( x 2 (1) = 3.80, p = 0.05), but the main effect of the effector and the interaction effect between speed and effector were insignificant ( ps >0.10).

Additionally, a marginally significant association was found between the CNV and body diagonal length in HS ( p -value = 0.050).

A statistically marginally significant attachment loss of 0.68 ± 1.04 was obtained for overall mean CAL during the same period of observation ( p = 0.05).

In addition, we found a marginally significant interaction of intervention type and age, χ 2 (3) = 7.76, p =.05, such that with increasing age children tended to be more likely to rank Giving higher, χ 2 (1) = 6.01, b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, p <.05, and rank Doing Nothing lower, χ 2 (1) = 4.52, b = − 0.03, SE = 0.01, p <.05.

The difference in EFS was marginally significant ( P = 0.05, 95% CI 0.15–0.99) but there was no difference in OS ( P = 0.2, 95% CI 0.12–1.41).

Whereas the simple main effect of the block was marginally significant in the phone-present condition, F (1.48, 41.42) = 3.53, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.0498, there were no significant differences between the blocks.

When the analysis was repeated with the outlying individual included, no substantive difference was seen in results, except improvement in symptoms within the Taking Healthy Steps group was marginally significant ( P =.05).

Stress symptoms were significantly associated with PHR, NHR, and MHR, with OR values of 2.08, 1.64, and 2.94 ( p < 0.01), and a marginally significant association with LHR (OR = 1.48, p < 0.05).

Besides sex and occupation, educational attainment also showed a marginally significant association ( OR = 0.63, p =.05).

The median peak titer showed a marginally significant difference among the three treatment groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, DF = 2, p = 0.05) and a Wilcoxon post-hoc test showed that peak titer was significantly lower in mice fed upon by one mosquito (5.5 log 10 ffu/mL) than mice fed upon by six to nine mosquitoes (6.4 log 10 ffu/mL), while the peak titer in mice fed upon by two to four mosquitoes (6.3 log 10 ffu/mL) was intermediate to, and did not differ significantly from, the other two groups.

The analysis showed marginally significant statistical differences between AC and AP (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.00–2.42, p = 0.05), and the results were homogenous ( p = 0.49; I 2 = 0%) (Fig. 7 b).

The ROS levels in U87 cells treated with the four nanoparticles were slightly higher than in the control group, with NaTmF 4 @SiO 2 showing a marginally significant difference ( p < 0.05).

There was a marginally significant main effect of stimuli [ F (1,40) = 4.094, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.093] while the main effect of group was not significant [ F (1,40) = 2.808, p = 0.102].

Brain V 10 and V 20 adjacent to V 15 were also marginally significant factors determining the reduction of lymphocytes (p = 0.050 and p = 0.059, respectively).

At 6 months, the difference was marginally significant ( t ( df = 368) = −2.01, P = 0.05) but the difference was not significant at 12 months ( t ( df = 333) = −0.98, P = 0.33).

While Pipiens showed no overall difference in host preference within and across the three locations (F (2, 15) = 3.4, P = 0.06), a post-hoc analysis identified a marginally significant difference in the PI between the Netherlands and Greece ( P ≤ 0.05) and a significant difference in the PI between Switzerland and Greece ( P = 0.03), but not between the Netherlands and Switzerland ( P = 0.78) (Fig. 3 ).

Though significant differences were found among different age groups [ F (3, 68.9 = 08) = 4.72, p = 0.005], post-hoc analysis showed that there was only a marginally significant difference between 21–30 and 41–50 age groups ( t = 0.52, p = 0.05).

Plant height had a marginally significant positive effect, with taller plants tending to cause more secondary extinctions (estimate ± SE = 0.405 ± 0.209, p = 0.05; Table S4 ).

A marginally significant inverse association was also observed for low HDL-C (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.38–0.95; P = 0.05).

When 6-month AHI was also included as a covariate in the model, the difference in TNF-a remained marginally significant ( p = 0.050).

In the hypertension‐only group (Figure 1(b) ), a marginally significant difference was observed between the first and third treatments ( p < 0.05), with no significant differences between the second treatment and the other two time points.

Additionally, analysis of sham rTMS studies showed a marginally significant decrease in YGTSS compared to baseline (MD = -4.39; 95% CI: [-8.75, -0.03], P = 0.050, I 2 = 0%; Figure 2A ).

The interaction between type of stimulus and form of script was marginally significant ( F (1,31) = 4.08, p≤ .05, η p 2 = .12). t -tests suggested significantly longer reaction times in response to the pointed script only in reading of words ( t (31) = 3.29, p <.01).

The patient’s rights domain score showed a marginally significant difference in the IPW-adjusted analysis (−2.60 points; 95% CI −5.16 to −0.04; P= .05) but not in the unadjusted (−2.05 points; 95% CI −4.61 to 0.52; P =.12) or MI-adjusted analyses (−2.92 points; 95% CI −6.93 to 1.09; P =.15).

For RS, the omnibus test indicated message condition was marginally significant on perceived absolute ENDS risk, F (2, 192) = 3.02, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.03.