“marginally significant”

The exception was the marginally significant differences ( p = 0.05) in levels of flavonoids between the two years.

The moderating effects of marital status and number of siblings on the dominance component were marginally significant ( p < .05 but p > .01).

neurological manifestations, the relatively low number of newborns with nonneurological forms of the disease may have made it difficult to show this potential benefit in these specific situations, as also seen for prematurity which remains marginally significant (p = 0.05).

Health in medical care (Panel E) exhibits marginally significant positive impact (PcPatap: β = 1.349, p < 0.05, PcPatau: β = 0.810, p < 0.10), implying that healthcare infrastructure and accessibility are fundamental to urban innovation.

On one hand, for intra-subject, statistical test on the performance of deep ConvNet over shallow ConvNet find the statistics Z = −1.923 which is marginally significant ( p = 0.05), where the negative Z shows the shallow ConvNet performs better than deep ConvNet.

Panicle number Only the main effect of Ghd7 was marginally significant ( P < 0.05), explaining 1.6% of the PN variation.

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 experiment 3 , one-way repeated-measures ANOVA yielded a marginally significant effect of finger ( F 2, 28 = 3.33, P = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.19).

The significant negative linear slope (Estimate = –0.195, SE = 0.075, p < 0.01) and marginally significant positive quadratic term (Estimate = 0.091, SE = 0.046, p < 0.05) suggest a curvilinear trajectory, characterized by an initial decline followed by partial recovery over time.

ITT Analyses Using the last-value-carried-forward method for imputing missing values, ITT analyses on all of those randomized to either ACT or TAU showed a significant effect immediately post treatment for disability, F(1, 70) = 4.43, P < .05, d = .36; depression, F(1, 70) = 5.91, P < .05, d = .46; and marginally significant effects for acceptance of pain, F(1, 70) = 3.91, P = .05, d = .23; and emotional functioning, F(1, 70) = 3.93, P = .05, d = .69.

No differences were observed in overall circulating T helper (p=0.76), T-regs (p=0.12) and T suppressor (p=0.10) absolute counts, although a small and marginally significant reduction in T-regs/T-eff count and % were observed (p=0.05 and p=0.04, respectively) ( Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 6 ).

We refer to effects as “marginally significant” when results indicate p < 0.05 but BF 10 < 3.0 (i.e., when the effect is supported by null hypothesis testing but the Bayes Factor suggests evidentiary value below our prespecified threshold).

Specifically, the indirect effect of DSO on TAW via DTS ( β = –0.043, SE = 0.023, p = .057) and on JS via resilience ( β = –0.073, SE = 0.038, p = .055) were marginally significant ( p ≥ .05) and thus do not meet the threshold for mediation.

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

Marginally significant evidence of interaction between occupational exposure and former smoking was also observed on FEV1/FVC ( p = 0.05).

A similar trend was observed for the Tinetti test, with marginally significant increases between T0 and T5 [ t (30) = 2.129; p < 0.05; d = 0.376] and between T0 and T17 [ t (30) = 2.037; p < 0.05; d = 0.438], which were no longer significant after the Bonferroni adjustment; again no difference was observed between T5 and T17.

IC is marginally significant at the p = 0.05 level, and therefore may indicate that IC variation observed across these extant taxa is the result of selection.

Compared to the TDCs, the mean R 2 value of the whole cortex in patients with ASD was significantly reduced ( p = 0.048, Figure 3 A), and decreases in R 2 values in SMN, CCN, and ventral attention network (VAN) were marginally significant ( p < 0.05, FDR correction failed).

The only SNP that was marginally significant in the meta-analysis was rs3219489 ( MUTYH Q338H), both under a recessive model (summary OR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; p = 0.05) and assuming additive allelic effects (summary OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14; p = 0.06).

Former smokers demonstrated marginally significant reduction (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.00–2.17, p = 0.050) compared to never-smokers ( Figure 2A ).

Analysis III based on a three level ordered outcome shows a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.05).

When the multiple models were analyzed by age group, low serum creatinine levels were significantly correlated with knee OA in all age groups in men (marginally significant in the 60–69 years age group) but only in the age group of <70 years in women (Bonferroni-corrected p <0.05).

In addition, the presence of intracerebral hemorrhage was marginally significant (β = 0.544, OR = 1.723, 95% CI: 1.000–2.970, p = 0.050).

However, a marginally significant main effect of feature, F (2,57) = 3.15, p = 0.05, ƞ p 2 = 0.10, and an interaction of feature and instruction was found, F (2,57) = 8.72, p < 0.001, ƞ p 2 = 0.23.

Family location showed a marginally significant negative effect (β = −0.05, t = − 2.51, p < 0.05).