“marginally significant”

Low educational attainment was marginally significant ( P = .05) in indicating approximately 1.7 additional unhealthy days, and a medium level of community poverty was independently significant in indicating approximately 1.4 additional unhealthy days in comparison to those living in a more affluent community.

Hispanic race was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

Results of reaction time also showed a marginally significant Duration × Typicality interaction ( F 1,5 = 6.34, p = .05) – the typicality effect (RT difference: atypical minus typical) was numerically greater for 40-msec displays (138 msec) than for 600-msec displays (46 msec).

Differences between treated and non-treated control samples were considered not significant ( P ≥ 0.05), marginally significant ( P < 0.05) ∗ , or significant ( P < 0.01) ∗∗ .

Of 39 patients with a surgery background, 30 showed edema, 13 (33%) in a period greater than the median and 17 (43%) lower than the median, and this comparison was not different from the statistical viewpoint (χ 2 = 0.41; P = 0.75); notwithstanding, if we consider the average of this interval (32.4 months), the difference is marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

There was a marginally significant difference between groups for CELF core language ( p = .050), with the CH group performing on average 14 points (i.e. ~ 1 SD) below controls on this measure (see also Supplementary Table 1 ).

There was, however, a marginally significant interaction between food and the number of rivals (X 2 = 3.96, p = 0.05).

A marginally significant interaction between contrast and age group was also found, F (1, 41) = 4.079, p = .05, η p 2 = .090.

P3 The main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (1, 50) = 4.03, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.075]; the HTA group had a larger P3 (2.88 ± 0.18 μV) compared with LTA group (2.39 ± 0.18 μV; Figure 4 ).

The difference in position errors was, however, marginally significant ( p = 0.05), comparing e pTSO and e pfMO .

In addition, these regions are marginally more predictive earlier in learning relative to later in learning, with left pars orbitalis (or inferior frontal gyrus) showing a marginally significant ( p < 0.05) decrease in predictive accuracy at M 300.

In comparison, the path:00982_1 signature displayed a significant predictive capacity in 5 datasets ( P < 0.05) and a marginally significant predictive ability in 2 datasets (0.1 < P > 0.05) in this analysis (Analytical data File 4).

In comparison to the reference population, the distribution of blood groups among all SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals was different (marginally significant; p = 0.05) ( Table 2B ).

At baseline the MC/SB group had lower salivary amylase activities than the control group (marginally significant: F [1,46] = 3.95; p = 0.05).

Higher intakes of yogurt were associated with reduced risk of breast cancer (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.82) and higher intakes of American, cheddar, and cream cheeses were associated with a marginally significant increased risk (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.99, 2.34; P = 0.05).

In multivariate analysis, the number of TREM2 + immune cells was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

The SnIPRe-like analysis gave similar results, with strongly negative genome-wide and immune-pathway estimates of the selective effect, but with substantially higher and marginally significant estimates for RNAi genes ( fig. 8 B ; mean selection effect = 0.015; P < 0.05).

Removing those with a medical profession, prior diagnosis of mental disease, or spending more than 15 min (n = 848) made the interaction between treatment and its effectiveness marginally significant: F(1, 838) = 3.86, p = .05.

Also in this patient group, reductions in DBP at week 52 with both combination doses were marginally significant when compared with linagliptin 5 mg (both p=0.05), but did not approach statistical significance when compared with empagliflozin. 3.1.2.

We observed a marginally significant association of the G allele in ERCC4 -rs744154 with breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60–1.00, P =0.05) and BRCA2 (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.45–1.02, P =0.06) mutation carriers.

There was a marginally significant effect of Group, F (1, 51) = 4.04, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.07 indicating higher proportion of congruent choices in the Deaf (54.2%) compared to normal-hearing participants (51.5%, Fig. 3A ).

In the case of direct fitness, this effect was marginally significant when individuals were grouped as 4+ ( β = −0.53 ± 0.30, χ 2 = 3.78, p = 0.05) but not when assigned their true age (Table S1 c).

Without the presence of an alpha value, the P value can be interpreted as P > 0.10, not significant; P ≤ 0.10, marginally significant; P ≤ 0.05, significant; and P ≤ 0.01, highly significant.

Increasing PP resulted in a marginally significant reduction in Ca absorption ( P <0·05), whereas increasing NPP had a positive effect on Ca absorption ( P <0·001).

In the subsequent results and discussion, we use “marginally significant” when p < 0.05 and “significant” to describe results where p < 0.01.