“marginally significant”

If we require the opposite-sign isoform associations to be marginally significant at p < 0.05, then 47.9% (663 of 1383) of the F-test-exclusive eGenes have significant opposite-sign associations, while only 22.1% (144 of 651) of eGenes found by both methods fit this criterion.

The interaction effect between the pre-post assignment and nationality is marginally significant (F = 4.25, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.15), while the three-way interaction involving pre-post assignment, individualism-collectivism orientation, and nationality is also marginally significant (F = 1.80, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.06).

In addition, the direct standardized effect from age to fruit and vegetable intake is marginally significant ( P < 0.05).

Despite this significant enhancement, which likely improves the signal-to-noise ratio of frequency input to neurons in slow RT trials, analyses of the correlation between the theta–alpha IF and neural spike rate illustrates a marginally significant negative correlation in fast RT trials ( r = − 0.196, p ≈ 0.05, Spearman correlation, Fig. 5 C) but no significant correlation in the slow RT trials ( r = 0.09 , p = 0.35, Spearman correlation, Fig. 5 D).

A repeated measures ANOVA between dual-near, dual-far and single average trial types revealed a marginally significant main effect, F (2, 32) = 3.67, p = .050.

Without the presence of an alpha value, the P value can be interpreted as P > 0.10, not significant; P ≤ 0.10, marginally significant; P ≤ 0.05, significant; and P ≤ 0.01, highly significant.

Last, the interaction between Veterans’ physical health and social support predicting relationship satisfaction was marginally significant ( B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, z = 1.95, p = 0.05, 95% CI [0.00; 0.17]).

The difference between switch and non-switch trials was marginally significant in the passive control group, F (1,56) = 4.02, p = 0.050, ƞ p 2 = 0.067 and non-significant in the active control group, F (1,56) < 1.

There was, however, a marginally significant difference between the groups on paternal intrusiveness, t (141) = −1.98, p = .050, with depressed fathers showing less intrusion, that is using less vocal and physical stimulation than non-depressed fathers.

For betweenness centrality and nucleotide diversity the correlations were also negative and marginally significant (τ = -0.12, P = 0.05 for Africans; τ = -0.11, P = 0.08 for Europeans).

The use of GA showed a marginally significant association with favorable outcome (adjusted OR 0.557; 95% CI: 0.311–1.000; P =0.050).

To interpret this interaction, three separate 2 (Trial Type) × 5 (Block) within-subjects ANOVAs were conducted for each time-pressure condition. In the 4-second condition, a marginally significant main effect of trial type was found, F (1,19) = 4.23, p = .05, η p 2 = 0.18, a main effect of block, F (4,76) = 3.86, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.17, and an interaction between factors, F (4,76) = 4.31, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.19.

The number of brood had a marginally significant effect (GLMM: brood F 1,177 = 5.237; P ≤ 0.05), while population and colony phase (i.e., the presence or absence of adult offspring) had no significant effect (population F 1,175 = 0.093; P = 0.761; colony phase F 1,176 = 0.157; P = 0.692).

Safety measures during smog episodes were marginally significant with a coefficient of 0.34 (SE = 0.17), (OR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.00–1.98; p = 0.050), indicating that adherence to these measures could potentially reduce risk of COPD.

Age had a weaker, marginally significant correlation ( r =0.28, P =.05).

The significant difference in ESS score change for the pitolisant group vs the placebo group continued through the end of treatment (with the exception of a marginally significant [ p = 0.05] difference at week 7 in HARMONY 1) and remained statistically significant after a 1-week double-blind placebo washout period in both studies (Fig. 1 ).

S6 Dataset A list of 497 genes that showed marginally significant difference in viral induced gene expression changes between asthmatic between non-asthmatic ALI samples (nominal p <0.05).

Conversely, refractoriness or relapse to the latest prior therapy exerted significantly adverse effect on PFS and DOR (1-year PFS: 100.0% vs 41.7%, p=0.02, 1-year DOR: 100.0% vs 50%, p=0.03, figure 2A,B ), which was also revealed as the marginally significant adverse factor in terms of OS (1-year OS: 100.0% vs 65.5%, p=0.05, figure 2C ).

The puppies in the treatment group showed a trend of reduced fat gain compared with those in the control group, and with a marginally significant difference at 6 months ( P = 0·05).

In the entire sample, the associations between phosphatidylethanolamines and incident stroke were attenuated but still marginally significant with P <0.05.

The difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Table 3 ). 2.3.

The mean concentration of fat in NCENSs and CENSs was 3.55 and 4.54 g/100 ml, respectively, indicating a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.05), although the fat amount based on percentage of energy was not significantly different among these solutions ( P = 0.64).

There were no significant group differences, although the PAD group showed a marginally significant poorer performance on Digit Symbol ( p = .05).

0.62), with a marginally significant difference ( Figures 2 B and 2C; labeled “network-based deep learning,” Wilcoxon signed-rank test, 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.