“marginally significant”

Marginally significant differences (p = 0.05) were observed between male cases and controls (217.52 vs. 298.17, respectively) but not within females ( Fig 1 ).

In contrast, in the elaborative rehearsal condition, a marginally significant interaction emerged between subsequent memory, modality, and scalp location, F (1, 25) = 4.23, MSE = 11.4, p = .050.

Boys (81.6) are found to have a higher median UIC than girls (73.1) and it is marginally significant (p = 0.05).

The chi-square test was marginally significant, χ 2 (2) = 5.87, p = .05.

On the emotions scores, lesions on the upper limbs caused marginally significant lower scores compared to lesions in the face/head (p = 0.05), whereas no significant differences were found as far as lesions on the lower limbs or trunk compared to face/head located lesions.

The statistical significance level was established at p < 0.05, however, we also reported a marginally significant effect at 0.06 > p > 0.05.

Changes in Depressive Symptoms The ANOVA testing for changes in depressive symptoms demonstrated a marginally significant main effect of time-by-group interaction (F(1, 79) = 3.82, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.05), indicating a marginally significant difference between the groups post-intervention.

In men, the decision authority was associated with the number of sickness absence days, though marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

Participants who developed MDD during the 6 year follow-up period were slightly, but nonsignificantly, younger (39.1 versus 41.5 years, p = .09) and were more likely to be female (marginally significant; 70.2% versus 61.0% female, p = .05), as compared with participants who did not develop MDD.

The main effect of object size was marginally significant (F(1,24) = 4.16, p>.05, η p 2 = .15).

The effect of marriage was marginally significant, F (1, 55) = 3.91, p = .05, partial η 2 = .07.

The association between PRDM6 and percent dense volume was marginally significant ( P < 0.05), with direction of effect being consistent with that reported for percent dense area [ 5 ].

We additionally checked for marginally significant maternal TDT P -values ( P < 0.05) at the SNP closest to the centromere and telomere on both arms of metacentric chromosomes and the q arm of acrocentric chromosomes.

As we examined the collective effect of marginally significant SNPs and found enrichment in two autoimmune diseases in the PS approach, here we focused our analysis on SNPs with at least nominally significant P values ( P < 0.05).

Time trends for isoniazid prevalence (increase) and MDR TB (decrease) among new cases were marginally significant ( F = 3.33, p<0.05, and F = 1.13, p<0.05) but in opposite directions.

The variables soil hydrologic group and permeability variables were found to be marginally significant ( p =0.05 and 0.045, respectively).

In the multivariate analysis, mucinous tumors were marginally significant (p-value = 0.05), with patients having mucinous tumors more frequently having PIK3CA mutations (OR 2.61; 95% CI 0.99–6.87).

Total aboveground dead and live biomass was not significantly different in unburned and burned plots, but there were marginally significant increases in standing dead biomass in the 10–19.9 and 20–29.9 cm DBH size classes (p<0.05, Figure 3 ).

The BMI > 25 kg/m 2 group had lower fT4 concentrations that were marginally significant compared to the BMI ≤ 25 kg/m 2 group (Z = −1.616; p = 0.050).

The comparison between HPV‐positive and HPV‐negative patients showed no differences in age, geographic region, histology, stage, associated diseases, previous screening, or having other STDs in their medical history, except marginally significant ( P = .05) differences for gravidity and parity (Table 1 ).

monilis , the decrease in clinging ability was marginally significant ( N =11, test day 5 versus 30, P =0.05, estimated marginal least square means post hoc comparisons).

There was a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.05) at baseline between the daily use and non-use group in the success ratio variable.

In multivariate analysis including variables with P<0.10 (cortisol and gender), high cortisol showed a marginally significant association with shorter PFS (HR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.00–2.69, P = 0.050), and female gender remained an independent risk factor (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.01–2.49, P = 0.044; Table 4 ).

When all seven studies were considered, the pooled estimate became marginally significant, favouring higher F exposure (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.16; p = 0.05). 3.4.

The first model found a marginally significant interaction between gentrification and sex ( β = −0.233, p = 0.050), such that there was a negative effect of gentrification on neighborhood cohesion for girls only (see Table 2 ).