“marginally significant”

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).

None of the effects of DTNB or PCMBS on Pct were significant (P > 0.05), except for the slight increase in the control Pci by DTNB in experiment B, which was marginally significant (0.02 < P <0.05).

However, the rate of contamination significantly improved after CDC gown removal demonstration, with marginally significant differences among different types of staff in the post-test ( P = .05).

As we examined the collective effect of marginally significant SNPs and found enrichment in two autoimmune diseases in the PS approach, here we focused our analysis on SNPs with at least nominally significant P values ( P < 0.05).

previously conducted a traditional pairwise meta-analysis to compare the VRF resistance of roots endodontically treated by the two canal-filling systems, the result was marginally significant ( P = 0.05) [ 11 ].

Survival of CWD-negative females among genotypes was marginally significant ( χ 2 = 5.8, df = 2, p = 0.05) with higher survival of 225*F deer compared to 225SS deer.

A marginally significant reduction in the MSE was found in segments related to apneas compared to hypopneas in the estimated motion signal (1.66 ± 1.46% vs 2.12 ± 0.87%, p = 0.05).

The synthesized data showed marginally significant differences between dual-task training and single-task training in Y-balance (MD = 1.60, 95% CI: −0.00 to 3.21, P = 0.050).

Pairwise comparisons showed that clients of the PSP Wellbeing Course experienced a statistically significant reduction in symptoms between pre-treatment and post-treatment on the PHQ-9, GAD-7, PCL-5, DAR-5, and PDSS-SR, all p 's < .001 and a marginally significant reduction in symptoms on the SIAS-6/SPS-6, p = .05.

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

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.

The Wald χ 2 test was conducted using a two-sided hypothesis test with the significance level set ( α ) at 0.05 and considered p > 0.1 as insignificant, p < 0.1 as marginally significant, and p < 0.05 as significant.

The comparison of the mean percentage of Np pods under greenhouse UV light exposure and field conditions revealed a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.05).

Additionally, the interaction between test timing and exercise method was significant [ F (4, 84) = 3.229, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.071], the interaction between test timing and CF level was marginally significant ( p = 0.050), and the interaction between test timing, exercise methods, and CF level was significant [ F (1, 84) = 3.328, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.072].

This association remained marginally significant in Model 3 (β = 0.013; 95% CI: 0.000–0.026; p = 0.050).

In multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for age and BMI, Prevotella abundance remained a significant predictor ( p = 0.044), while IL-1β was marginally significant ( p = 0.050).

At the allelic level, a marginally significant difference was observed in the frequency of 5 and 6 alleles among HADS-A subgroups ( p = 0.05).

The main effect ‘test order’ had a marginally significant influence on the latency to forage (df = 2, χ 2 = 5.992, p = 0.050), with sparrows foraging marginally sooner in the third round of tests (Table 2 ).

Lead was the only metal that had a marginally significant lower blood concentration in ASD cases compared to TD controls ( p = 0.05).

In the subsequent results and discussion, we use “marginally significant” when p < 0.05 and “significant” to describe results where p < 0.01.

The result was a marginally significant association ( P = .05) that contributes to the debate about how genes influence the presence of DAs in subjects with CLP.

A p = 0.05 significance level was considered for all the analyses, although marginally significant results (p = 0.05–0.10) were also reported.

Importantly, there was no significant difference between the asynchronous conditions ( t = 0.40; P = 0.69, two-tailed t -test), and there was a marginally significant interaction of visuo-tactile temporal congruence × body type (F 1,28 = 4.17; P = 0.05).

15 There was only a small (although marginally significant, P = 0.05) difference in the total proportion of confirmed cases by colposcopy (74.6% versus 72.9%) for VIA and Pap respectively.

Other notable findings include significantly less simultaneous nephrectomies in the late group (22.4% versus 89.4%, P < 0.001) and a marginally significant higher proportion of posttransplant nephrectomies (25.4% versus 12.1%, P = 0.050).