“marginally significant”

A previous meta-analysis indicated that there was a marginally significant association with the UGT2B17 Del polymorphism under Del/Del versus Ins/Ins +Ins/Del ( P = 0.05) [ 40 ].

For women (Panel C), the risk of being never married increased with education (RRR = 1.19), with having lived with someone who went to prison (RRR = 5.76) and with having divorced parents (RRR = 2.18, marginally significant at p = .050).

Postoperative nasal packing was associated with reduced rates of diabetes insipidus and thyroid-stimulating hormone abnormalities ( P < 0.05) and a marginally significant reduction in cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea ( P = 0.05).

Although the effects of soil depth and N fertilization on SRL were not significant, their interactive effect was marginally significant ( P = 0.05; Table 6 ), indicating that N fertilization affected SRL differently at different soil depths.

observed only a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.05) with the same comparison.

However, no clear associations were observed, except a marginally significant association between GRS4 and gross hematuria (p < 0.05).

1b ) was decreased (mechanical hyperalgesia) by 10% (not significant; p > 0.05) and 16% (marginally significant; p = 0.05), respectively, compared with control rats.

A marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.05) was detected for this region.

The proportion of correct looking was significant for the 2‐syllable sequences [mean = 0.62; t (24) = 2.17; p = 0.04; Cohen's d = 0.43], and it was marginally significant for the 3‐syllable trials [mean = 0.39; t (24) = −2.09; p = 0.05; Cohen's d = −0.42].

When we collapsed across Choices 1 through 3, the difference between the control and stop groups was marginally significant ( p = .05).

Furthermore, Group × Task-type × Time interaction was found to be marginally significant [F(1, 29) = 4.08, p = .05, η p 2 = .12], indicating that the group differences were most likely inconsistent across Task-type (i.e., shape classification vs. digit classification).

For endurance ( Figure 2A ), the pooled analysis of the two studies indicated a marginally significant improvement in the C. sinensis supplementation group compared with the placebo group ( p = 0.05), with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 20%).

After mental fatigue inducement, in the theta band, the interaction effect on average path length was significant ( F (3,56) = 3.239, p = 0.029, η p 2 = 0.148) and decreased significantly in the 15 Hz binaural beats group ( p < 0.05); the interaction effect on nodal efficiency was marginally significant ( F (3,56) = 2.568, p = 0.063, η p 2 = 0.121) and the 15 Hz binaural beats group showed an increasing trend ( p < 0.05).

The Wald χ 2 test was conducted using a two-sided hypothesis test with the significance level set ( α ) at 0.05 and considered p > 0.1 as insignificant, p < 0.1 as marginally significant, and p < 0.05 as significant.

5 ) but not in controls (2% reduction per cm 3 , p = .79) and the group interaction was marginally significant (mean difference 19% reduction per cm 3 , p = .050).

The results showed that only feedback type was marginally significant for the main effects, F (1,44) = 4.057, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.084.

48 Additionally, there was a marginally significant reduction in ventricular arrhythmias with carvedilol versus metoprolol (22% vs 26%, HR=0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00, p=0.050).

Here, a main effect for politeness, F (1,297) = 5.65, p = 0.02, η p 2 = 0.02 [and a marginally significant effect for compassion, F (1,297) = 4.03, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.01] emerged, suggesting that politeness was related to greater allocations across all conditions (see Supplementary Tables S3 – S5 in the Supplementary Material).

For working memory (RA, %), there was only a marginally significant main effect of Time [ F (1,131) = 3.98, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.03; higher RA at T2 than T1], which became non-significant after co-varying for age [ F (1,130) = 3.09, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.02] ( Table 4 ).

38.0±9.1 minutes), and this difference was marginally significant (P=0.05).

Furthermore, a significant association between a European League Against Rheumatism–defined good response (18) at week 16 and change in the DAS28‐CRP over the first month of the study ( P = 0.02) was observed, whereas the association with change in MBDA score over this time period was marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

3e ), which is marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

Linear models showed a marginally significant positive association between leopard fGCM and habitat NDVI values ( t value = 2.003, F (1, 201) = 4.01, P = 0.05) (Supplementary Material, Fig.

Affective state The Friedman test revealed a significant effect of experimental phase on valence (X 2 (1) = 4.80, p < .05) and a marginally significant effect on arousal (X 2 (1) = 3.79, p = .05).

An additional regression analysis conducted on 50% of bilingual children with highest weighted exposure and on matched monolingual peers revealed a main effect of Age ( p < 0.01), but only a marginally significant effect of Group ( p = 0.05), and no interaction of Group and Age ( p = 0.89).