“marginally significant”

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.

(2010) found a marginally significant ( p = 0.05) higher frequency of preeclampsia in women conceiving by a sperm donor compared to partners in spermatozoa insemination.

There was a marginally significant association between E-cadherin positivity and tumour differentiation into low and high grade ( p = 0.050).

The abortion rate was higher among day 6 transfers, but the difference was marginally significant (13.53% vs. 7.67%, 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 ).

We should note, however, that when the ANCOVA was conducted on only heterosexual participants, a marginally significant interaction between BAC and face sex emerged, F (1, 82) = 3.95, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.05.

The difference in SE for competence was marginally significant ( p = 0.05).

However, there was a marginally significant increase in e-cigarette uptake between 2010 and 2017 (p=0.05).

We did observe a marginally significant interaction between soil type and sterilization method ( F 1,30 = 2, R 2 = 0.04, P = 0.05), and a three-way interaction between soil type, sterilization method, and wash treatment ( F 1,30 = 2, R 2 = 0.04, P = 0.05), but they only explained a minor part of the composition variance ( R 2 = 0.04).

We found a marginally significant sex difference at 1 h post wake-up ( p = 0.05), indicating that women had higher cortisol output at this time-point, but no other sex differences for any of the cortisol time points (all p ’s > 0.11).

56) that would exacerbate the effects of a marginally significant violation of homogeneity of variance (Levene's test: p < 0.05 for both Seeing and Non-Seeing levels of the factor Condition) and the non-normality of the resulting residuals (Shapiro Wilks tests p < 0.05), it was obvious that a mixed-ANOVA design might not be reliable.

Day 1 A marginally significant difference was seen in GWI (1587.2 vs 1165.6 mmHg %; p = 0.05, BF 10 = 1.53) and GCW (1805.4 vs 1349.1 mmHg %; p = 0.05, BF 10 = 1.69) between survivors and non-survivors.

However, a marginally significant correlation was obtained between age and change in treatment quality ( p = 0.050).

Besides, the association between stress and flow experience was marginally significant (β = –0.16, p = 0.05), showing that H4 was basically supported.

The difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Table 3 ). 2.3.

In statistical analysis, small tumors (<4 cm 3 ) significantly correlated with Tinel sign (p < 0.001), and was marginally significant with postoperative neurological deficits (p = 0.05).

Sub-group analyses in these 2 regions revealed a marginally significant correlation in the Enc + Nov group in distal CA1 ( Figure 6Fi , r = 0.81, p = 0.05), but not in proximal CA1 or in the Enc + Fam group ( Figures 6Ei,Eii,Fii , all r < 0.33, p > 0.46).

2E , t = 0.79, p > 0.05), but a marginally significant difference in staining density per cell (Fig. 2F , t = 1.38, p = 0.05), suggesting that CB1 mRNA level is higher in VTA glutamatergic neurons than in VTA GABAergic neurons. Δ 9 -THC produces conditioned place aversion in mice We then used the conditioned place preference (CPP) or aversion (CPA) procedures to compare the rewarding or aversive effects of Δ 9 -THC between VgluT2- CB1 ‒/‒ mice and their wildtype control littermates.

For the Story task, results showed a marginally significant effect of Setting on prosocial choices, F (1,30) = 4.16, p = .05, n p 2 = 0.122 ( Fig. 4 b): choices were more prosocial under the ON setting ( M = 0.576, SD = 0.174) than under the OFF setting ( M = 0.526, SD = 0.215).

Compared with the reference age group of 20-39 years, there was no association between age and perception scores in the 40-59–year group, although there was a marginally significant positive correlation between age and information score ( P =.05) in this age group.

The difference between nights in systolic BP (SBP) measured by the wrist‐device was not significant (1.6±7.0 mmHg, p = .124), while the difference in diastolic BP (DBP) was marginally significant (1.4±4.9 mmHg, p = .050).

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

However, when the analysis was confined to 2017–2022 data, HPV16/18 prevalence decreased from 90.5% to 64.7% among young women aged 20–29 years, and this progressive decrease was marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Cochran‐Armitage trend test). 4.

The Shannon diversity model accounts for 54.4% of the variation, with significant contributions from salinity ( edf = 1.3, F = 12.9, P < 0.001), C/N ratio ( edf = 1, F = 21.5, P < 0.001), and δ 13 C ( edf = 2, F = 6.9, P < 0.01) and a marginally significant effect from temperature ( edf = 2.1, F = 3.2, 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).