CYP2C9 1075 A>C (*3 variant) polymorphism showed a marginally significant difference between patients having multiple drug resistance and drug-responsive patients for AC genotype (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.32–1.00, P = 0.05).
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
The movement × condition interaction was not significant for control pictures ( F (1, 58) = .72, p = .40), but it was marginally significant for alcohol pictures ( F (1,58) = 3.92 p = .05).
We also found that additional seven SNPs in six genes showed marginally significant association with NIHL ( P > 0.05 and < 0.1).
To include all possible metabolomic features that were involved in PFAS-associated metabolic pathways, metabolomic features having marginally significant associations with PFAS exposures (raw p < 0.05) were selected for further metabolic pathway analyses.
There was also a marginally significant effect of Vignette pair, F (1, 39) = 4.07, p = .05; η partial 2 = .094, as people gave higher innateness ratings to the vignette pair concerning flying compared to those concerning singing.
Please rephrase L274 add “only” before the vastus medialis L289 why the result on the Fz site is considered as “marginally significant trend” (p=0.05), whereas in the previous paragraph the result of RMS in BF was not (p=0.05)? ********** what does this mean? ).
At Setting 2, the two imaging variables (i.e., deep learning signature and radiomics signature) remain significant with similar hazard ratios, along with the following new observations: CEA became marginal (p=0.06), pT became insignificant (p=0.88)), PNI became marginally significant (p=0.05), gross appearance became insignificant (p=0.64), and chemotherapy’s hazard ratio increased to 0.440 from 0.254.
There was, however, a marginally significant interaction between food and the number of rivals (X 2 = 3.96, p = 0.05).
A trend towards higher eczema presentation was reported in Group B infants, but the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).
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.
3B , in the regions activated during Middle minus End trials, the contrast M-S minus M-L did not reveal significant signal difference in the parahippocampal region (PHC), but revealed marginally significant signal increase in the left lateral parietal region (IPL1) (t(71) = 2.6, P <0.05).
There was a marginally significant difference for age, t (328.63) = −1.97, p = .05; participants were, on average, 2 years older than the random sample of MVA survivors ( M = 35.17, SD = 9.40, vs.
The manipulation of context (i.e., context relation or context saliency) did not affect reaction times, whereas a marginally significant main effect of context relation was found in error rates, F (1, 146) = 3.88, p = .05, η p 2 = .03, with a relatively higher error rate when the context was repeated ( M error rate = .12) than when it was changed ( M error rate = .11).
Results also showed a marginally significant main effect of sex ( F (1,103) = 3.939, p = 0.050, partial eta squared = 0.037), with females’ rating (mean = 6.38, SD = 0.11) being higher than males’ (mean = 6.05, SD = 0.11), whereas the main effect of group was not significant ( p > 0.05).
Pairwise comparisons using the Mann–Whitney U test revealed marginally significant differences, particularly between the White and Black & Latino groups ( p = 0.05).
The results, after adjusting for covariates, indicated that adolescents who experienced parental divorce reported higher internalizing problems than did adolescents who remained in intact families, but the difference was marginally significant, F = 3.64, p = .05 (see Fig. 1 ).
As shown in Table 5 , there was a marginally significant interaction effect of Performance self-talk and Social-behavior strategy on the prediction of writing anxiety at T1 ( b = −0.10, p < 0.05).
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.
While there was a marginally significant positive effect of distance on F ST ( r = 0.25, p = .05), absolute divergence Dxy did not increase significantly with distance ( r = 0.24, p = .11), and pairwise genetic differentiation of Euclidean distances was borderline significant ( r = 0.21, p = .05, Figure 3a,b ; Figure S6 ).
Specifically, C2 had a marginally significant difference from C3 ( p < 0.05), and C2 scored lower than C3 in this dimension.
Other ethnicities showed a marginally significant reduction (-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.00, P = 0.05).
With regard to histologic cell type, the difference was not statistically significant, though it was marginally significant ( P =0.05).
Gender Distribution and Analysis The chi-square test indicated a marginally significant association between gender and SBP subtype (χ2 = 5.994, df = 2, p = 0.050).
A total of 22 783 and 11 362 CpG sites had marginally significant interaction p-values ( P < .05) for SBP and DBP, respectively.
A main effect of group was marginally significant, F 1,45 = 2.86, p < 0.05, one-tailed, MSe = 1.71 suggesting that subjects with a family history of psychiatric illness were marginally less sensitive than controls.