“marginally significant”

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).

The main effect of Group was marginally significant ( F (1, 32) = 4.14, p = 0.050) reflecting slower naming times in the DLD ( M = 1404 ms, SD = 422 ms) than in the TD group ( M = 1177 ms, SD = 370 ms).

We also found marginally significant enrichments of phosphorylation sites ( P < 0.05), methylation sites ( P < 0.05), and sumoylation sites ( P < 0.01) in these proteins (Additional file 1 : Table S3).

Follow‐up independent‐samples t tests showed that, compared to the TD group, there was a marginally significant decrease in amplitude for the ASD group at the posterior ROI, t (49) = −1.97, p = 0.05; d = 0.56, and a significant increase in amplitude at the frontal ROI, t (49) = 4.05, p < 0.001; d = 1.14; no group difference was present at the central ROI, t (49) = −1.66, p = 0.10; d = 0.47.

A marginally significant benefit for 100-day TRM was observed in the group treated with rabbit or horse ATG for GVHD prophylaxis (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.56-1.00, P = 0.05).

Deleting Demmer’s study [ 63 ] would reduce the effect size and obtain a marginally significant result (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.99–1.39, p > 0.05).

There was no evidence that mosquito net use the night before the survey related to MHS from 2011–2012 and marginally significant evidence (p<0.05) from 2015–2016 (β = 1.466, 95% C.I. = 0.848–2.103, marginal R 2 = 0.020, respectively).

Among the top 2% of genes with consistently higher white expression than purple, there were 18 significant terms ( P <0.01) and 42 marginally significant terms ( P <0.05) exhibiting enrichment.

A further simple-slope analysis revealed that, for the low-involvement group, the positive predictive effect of exposure to vulnerable physician portrayals on overall evaluations was marginally significant (simple slope=0.10; SE 0.05; P =.05) and the evaluations mediated the relationship between exposure to vulnerable physician portrayals and trust in physicians; the indirect effect was 0.08 (95% CI 0.002-0.17).

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.

[ 7 ] set the cut-off values of FIB and PLT as 2.75 g/L and 215*10^9/L, respectively, and they found a marginally significant relationship between elevated PLT and unfavourable PFS ( P = 0.05) and no prognostic role for FIB.

Among former shift workers, each year since the cessation of night shift work was associated with a significant increase in TL (β = 0.01, p = 0.001) and a marginally significant decrease in AA (β = −0.08, p = 0.05) (Table 3 ; Fig. 2 ).

Between-subjects analysis (n = 16) showed a marginally significant reduction in DOMS scores at 48 hours ( P = 0.05 in right legs and P = 0.053 in left legs).

Post-scanning cued recall and subjective ratings The analysis of cued recall accuracy revealed a marginally significant effect of visual perspective, F (1, 23) = 4.39, p = .05, η p 2 = .16, BF 10 = .44, which was qualified by an interaction between visual perspective and embodiment n, F (1, 23) = 5.37, p = .03, η p 2 = .19, BF 10 = 2.09.

For the control group, no difference was found between the pre-measure and the half-way measure, and the pre-measure and the post-measure, p = .600, p = .608, respectively; the control group demonstrated a marginally significant improvement from the half-way measure to the post-measure, p = .050.

While considering the changes in tremor severity for both left and right hands (by taking the average change in tremor severity) for a given tremor phase combination derived from instantaneous tremor phases from both hands, both patients showed multiple phase combinations that provided marginally significant effects on bilateral tremor severity (Fig. 2E,I , blue stars, P < 0.05 against surrogate distribution, although none of them survived multiple comparison corrections).

Analysis revealed a three-way interaction that was marginally significant ( F (1,17) = 4.31, P = 0.05, η P 2 = 0.20).

Among smaller, less precise studies toward the bottom of the plot, results were distributed across both significant (light gray area, p < 0.01) and marginally significant regions (dark gray area, 0.01 < p < 0.05), suggesting no evident directional bias.

The multivariate results showed a marginally significant interaction effect of time and group ( F (1,40) = 4.05, P = .05, partial η 2 = 0.09, large effect size).

There was a marginally significant ( p = 0.05) association between the number of PT visits and the increase in 2-min Step Test score at follow-up, regardless of time point.

Changes in work efficiency and the sense of national unity are negatively correlated, however, this relationship is weak and statistically marginally significant, r = -0.066, p < 0.05.

Retest), Frequency, and Group was marginally significant [ F (30,375)=1.49; p =.05].

We also found marginally significant interaction in the second visit [ F (1,56) = 3.11, p corrected = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.05].

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.

After adjusting for differences in DLCO, HA remained a marginally significant predictor of fibrosis ( p = 0.05) while the difference in ELF scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant.