“marginally significant”

Although some of the evidential value testing techniques I used to evaluate Wisman and Shrira ( 2020 ) were more novel and complex, many were not (e.g., eye-balling the implausibly repetitious “borderline/marginally significant” nature of the p values of their three focal tests, p = .01, .044, and .054, respectively).

Findings also suggest a marginally significant relationship between identifying as having a “Other” political affiliation (b = 0.176, p ≤ 0.010) and greater support for gun control, compared to identifying as a Republican.

Vitamin A was associated with a marginally significant reduction of 2.39 days (p = 0.01, 95% CI: 4.19-0.47), while zinc supplementation yielded a more pronounced effect, averaging a 3.17-day reduction (p < 0.01, 95% CI: 5.19-1.31).

The impact on outpatient services revenue was marginally significant ( P =.01) and negative, suggesting that adoption led to at least a temporary drop in revenue, on average, in comparison with the control group.

Correlations between FA, AD and RD values, and SLC6A4 DNA methylation status A significant inverse correlation between the FA values of the body of the corpus callosum and SLC6A4 DNA methylation at CpG3 was observed for patients with MDD (Pearson's correlation: r =−0.493, P =0.003; Table 4 and Figure 3 ), in conjunction with a marginally significant inverse correlation at CpG4 (Pearson's correlation: r =−0.438, P =0.01; Table 4 ).

The results in Table 2 show that two-way interactions are either highly significant ( P < 0.01 for extraction/matrix and extraction/method for DNA concentration) or marginally significant (0.01 < P <0.05 for matrix/method for DNA concentration).

By contrast, the origins of NP and PA were found to be insignificant and marginally significant (P<0.01; F<7), to the polymerase activity, respectively.

There were no significant differences between RP and HC participants at these three electrode sites ( p -value > 0.01), but there was a marginally significant difference between NR and HC ( p -value << 0.01), where aHC exhibited a higher PEIMF2 index as compared to NR.

It is evident that the STRF differences faded within 0.8 s of the target interval, though remaining marginally significant (paired t -test: P <0.010, n =151); they completely disappeared during the second passive session (paired t -test: P <0.520, n =151).

PPD at 2 months was also positively associated with the report of disrespect during childbirth 3 days after childbirth, although this association was marginally significant (R 2 = 0.04, F(1,117) = 6.28, p = 0.01 and β = 3.36, p = 0.096) (Table 2 ).

Results : In the total population, a marginally significant positive correlation was observed between mtDNA copy number (mtDNA-CN) and serum 25(OH)D 3 levels (r = 0.210; p = 0.010), which did not remain significant after Bonferroni correction.

A repeated-measures ANOVA on the training-session RTs with context (old, new) and epoch (1–4) as factors revealed a significant main effect of epoch, though only a marginally significant effect of context: epoch, F (1.71, 25.63) = 18.74, p < 0.01, η p 2 = 0.56 (RTs were 287 ms faster in epoch 4 than in epoch 1); context, F (1,15) = 4.22, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.20 (RTs were 106 ms faster to old than to new displays); the context × epoch interaction was not significant, F (1.43, 21.48) = 0.78, p = 0.51, η p 2 = 0.05.

Note that the Bonferroni correction assumes independence between tests and is overly conservative in the presence of linkage, so it is worthwhile to mention that all marginally significant tests ( p < 0.01) correspond to combinations within and not between linkage groups (Table S5 ), supporting the consideration of loci within these four linkage groups as haplotypes for forensic calculations.

We did find marginally significant differences in Shannon’s H between these populations ( P = 0.01 and 0.03 at 3,000 and 6,500 rarefaction depths, Kruskal–Wallis test).

Although a continuous form of social network embeddedness was marginally significant at thresholds of p < 0.01 and p < 0.005, strong component-level associations were mainly identified from ROI-pairs between right frontal and occipital lobes.

Given that a marginally significant difference occurred in the overall reaction times among the groups (F (2,256) = 7.79, p < 0.01, the RTs of the open-skill, closed-skill, and control groups were 618 ms, 638 ms, and 664 ms, respectively), the efficiency of the three attentional networks was divided by the overall RT of each participant.

P-values were calculated and statistical significance reported as highly significant (***) if p≤0.01, significant (**) if p≤0.05, and marginally significant (*) if p≤0.1.

Initial analyses revealed no significant differences in demographic or EEG characteristics between the post-stroke non-cognitive impairment (PSN) group and healthy controls (HC), with the exception of marginally significant variations in A-MMD ( p = 0.01) and B-MMD ( p = 0.03) ( Supplementary material 1 ).

For total reading times, a repeated measures 2 × 2 ANOVA with SENTENCE TYPE and BREAK LOCATION showed a significant (or marginally significant) effect of SENTENCE TYPE [ F 1(1, 47) = 8.44, p < 0.01, F 2(1, 15) = 3.02, p = 0.10].

The PGS based on our generated summary statistics was able to predict a small but marginally significant ( P = 0.01) fraction of the variance in a test of arithmetic achievement.

In fact, Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see methods) using the reactome "Unfolded Protein Response (UPR)" gene set was marginally significant at 24 h (FDR < 25%) and highly significant at 21d (adjusted p < 0.01) (Additional file 3 ).

For cognitive depressive symptoms, the unadjusted association was marginally significant, but it strengthened in the final adjusted model (β = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56, p = 0.01).

Statistical significance of the effects was indicated as follows: highly significant (** P < 0.01), significant (* P < 0.05), and marginally significant (+ P < 0.1).

Particularly, marginally significant higher percentages of married/in cohabitation and not single-parent mothers agreed that vaccines are safe ( p = 0.01) (53.5 and 53.4%, respectively).

These analyses revealed that, in the last step of the model, both ESJ and SEC were significant or marginally significant predictors of in-person (ESJ: B = 0.581, s.e. = 0.223, t (181) = 2.61, p < 0.01; SEC: B = 0.032, s.e. = 0.012, t (181) = 2.71, p < 0.01) and online learning (ESJ: B = − 0.334, s.e. = 0.171, t (181) = − 1.95, p = 0.053; SEC: B = − 0.028, s.e. = 0.009, t (181) = -3.12, p < 0.01).