“marginally significant”

In patients with svPPA, there was a significant effect of atrophy within the SN principal gradient ( p < 0.001) and marginally significant effects within the limbic and visual networks ( p = 0.05).

A meta-analysis of these three studies [ 28 , 29 , 30 ] on the effect of curcumin versus placebo showed a marginally significant mean difference (MD) in brachial SBP, with an MD of 1.93 mmHg (95% CI −0.01, 3.88; p = 0.05; Figure 5 A), and moderate heterogeneity was observed.

In addition, the moderating effect of work meaningfulness was marginally significant ( β =0.08, p =0.05), indicating that the positive relationship between performance pressure and workplace anxiety was strengthened when the level of work meaningfulness was higher ( β =0.81, p <0.001) rather than lower ( β =0.67, p <0.001).

Conversely, the indirect effect of PA on SW through PSS was significant ( β = 0.109; t = 6.599; p < 0.001), with a marginally significant direct effect ( β = 0.070; t = 1.960; p > 0.05), suggesting a complementary partial mediation.

The egg mass size × species interaction effect was found to be marginally significant (χ 2 = 3.84; df = 1; p = 0.050).

Compared with MAG-BERT and HyCon, BMRN has a marginally significant advantage ( p < 0.05) in Macro-F1-4 and Macro-F1-2.

A 2 (test) × 3 (group) mixed-factors ANOVA revealed no main effect of group, F (2,71) = 0.16; p = 0.85; η 2 G < 0.01, no main effect of test, F (1,71) = 1.10; p = 0.30; η 2 G < 0.01, but a marginally significant group × test interaction, F (2,71) = 3.07; p = 0.05; η 2 G = 0.02.

732/1619 control subjects, a marginally significant odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI 1.12–1.54, p < 0.05) was obtained.

Weekly training volume emerged as a marginally significant positive predictor of depressive symptom severity ( β = 0.37, p = 0.05), indicating that higher training hours were associated with more pronounced depressive symptoms.

There was a marginally significant ( p = 0.05) effect of condition on bids, with 13.0% lower bids after glucose and 16.6% lower bids after sucralose (both relative to water).

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

Microcalcification on mammography was seen in 41.3% (19/46) of patients in the non-upgrade group and in 77.8% (7/9) of patients in the upgrade group, which indicated a marginally significant difference (p=0.05).

3.3 Perceived competence and peer acceptance The ANOVA for perceived general competence was marginally significant ( F (1, 23) = 4.01, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.15).

We also observed a marginally significant interaction between the training group and concreteness ( b = 1.47, t (3949) = 1.98, p = .05; d = .06).

However, the mouse FcμR domain shows a marginally significant lower Tm than human FcμR ( p = 0.05).

For successful inflations, we found a marginally significant effect in the latency of the P2 over inflation steps, χ 2 (7) = 14.039, p = .050, while the main effect of condition was insignificant ( p = .726).

The relationship was significant when considering the risk of cholera in only placebo recipients (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98; P < 0.0001), and was of marginally significant in a model that considered the risk only in vaccinees (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-1.00; P = 0.05).

At maintenance (6 weeks posttreatment), the dyads showed a marginally significant effect compared to controls, ß = 3.12, SE = 1.58, t (203.54) = 1.97, p = .05.

This difference is marginally significant ( P < 0.05 by χ 2 test).

The RiskScore was marginally significant ( P ≈ 0.05) between Grade 2 + 3 groups proving that the more advanced the stage is, the higher the RiskScore would be.

Other ethnicities showed a marginally significant reduction (-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.00, P = 0.05).

However, the p-value for this association was marginally significant (p = 0.05). 3.6 Antibiogram results for gram-negative bacterial isolates The susceptibility profiles of different gram-negative bacterial strains were analyzed, and the numbers and percentages of sensitive isolates are reported in Table 4 below.

Competing risks and mortality The Fine and Gray sub distribution hazard model showed that revision surgery was associated with a 78% higher hazard of reoperation compared to ORIF, with the result being marginally significant (HR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.00–3.15, p = 0.050).

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.

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.