“marginally significant”

Besides, the negative association between constipation and dizziness duration was marginally significant ( p value = 0.05).

There was also a marginally significant effect of primo group for the Mendelssohn, F (1, 27) = 4.17, p = .05, η 2 = .13, but not for the Satie or Schytte.

Similar findings were seen for RFS although the interaction was marginally significant ( P = 0.05) and the benefit of intensive chemotherapy in patients with non-t-AML was less pronounced (Fig. 3b ).

Results show that Degree is a negative and marginally significant predictor of the burnout index (ß = -.22, p< .05), while constraint is not (p>.1).

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).

This difference remained marginally significant after adjusting for all covariates ( p = 0.05).

When significant and marginally significant ( i.e. , p < 0.05 and p ≤ 0.10) variables from the univariate analyses were included in the multivariate analysis, both age and reason for migration remained statistically significant with p < 0.05. 3.2.

Using significant meQTLs on chromosome 1, analyses using only African American samples ( N = 112) showed that 99.91% of the meQTLs were directionally consistent with the full analysis, with 92% marginally significant ( P < 0.05) and 66% genome-wide significant (FDR < 0.01) in the smaller sample size and an overall sharing of π 1 = 0.995.

The control group showed a marginally significant increase in scores between baseline and 3 months post intervention, P = .05.

A marginally significant standardized regression coefficient of b = .362, t (28) = 2.05, p = .05, f = .388, indicated that there was an overall trend for an increase in performance during the memory training.

There was a marginally significant association between gender and the closeness to which respondents followed news about heat waves ( p = 0.05), with women (62.0%) more likely to follow “Very closely” news about heat waves than men. 3.4.

Horizontal pleiotropy assessed by MR-Egger intercepts was minimal for NAFLD (intercept = 0.026, P = 0.059), chronic HBV (intercept = 0.020, P = 0.490), and viral hepatitis (intercept = 0.004, P = 0.868), whereas primary biliary cholangitis exhibited a marginally significant pleiotropy signal (intercept = −0.088; P < 0.05).

In addition, the LAARP approach had less postoperative complications compared with PSARP, with a marginally significant difference (RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.44–0.99; P = 0.05).

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).

Pearson correlation analysis revealed a statistically significant but weak positive correlation with age ( r = 0.20, p = 0.03), and a marginally significant correlation with work experience ( r = 0.13, p = 0.05), with the emotional labour score.

We found a marginally significant interaction effect between abundance group, day of sampling and disturbance treatment ( F = 1.7 16 , p = 0.05).

Among violent offenders only, sedatives tended to be associated with fatal violence ( p =0.06), whereas amphetamine, homelessness, age, and (marginally significant, p =0.05) heroin were negatively associated with fatal violence, as opposed to non-fatal violence.

The characteristics of the two groups were similar, with a marginally significant difference in their distribution ( P > 0.05).

Results Neither MMP-2 SNPs nor MMP-9 SNPs revealed significant association with PDR in single-locus comparisons; similarly, MMP-2 haplotype frequencies did not differ notably between groups, although the C-allele of the −1306C/T polymorphism and the C-allele containing haplotype (CGCG) in MMP-2 exhibited marginally significant association with PDR in males (p<0.05, p corr =NS).

All measures revealed a significant effect except for the Boston Naming Test and the TMT-4, with WMS-LM-II being marginally significant at p = .05.

The interaction between treatment type and time was marginally significant ( F =3.29, P =0.05).

In all statistical tests, p < 0.01 was considered highly significant, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and 0.05 < p < 0.1 was considered marginally significant. 3.

The statement “My family really tries to help me” was marginally significant, with current substance users being 54% more likely to disagree with this statement than those not using substances (aOR 1.54; 95% CI 0.998-2.391; P=0.05).

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant between P > 0.05 and P ≤ 0.10.

Marginally significant main effect of stimulus pair (F=3.98, p=0.05) was revealed in the test phase, with controls showing a significantly higher preference in Frequent Winner vs Frequent Loser (FWFL) pair than patients (t=-2.25, p=0.028).