“marginally significant”

However, duration of chemotherapy was marginally significant with patients receiving two vs three cycles of IC having slightly different rates of decline ( P = 0.052; Figure 1B ).

A stratified analysis of tumor clinical stage indicated that the curative effect of CCRT+AC on patients with N 2–3 disease was marginally significant (HR=0.35, 95% CI=0.11–1.06, P =0.052).

The interaction between ethnicity of the stimuli used and internet frequency was marginally significant, F(2,83) = 3.001, p = 0.052, suggesting that masculinity preferences for the three types of male faces differed depending on the amount of internet used (Fig. 3 ).

The group differences in response accuracy when negative primes were presented were marginally significant [ F (2,38) = 3.208, p = 0.052, η 2 = 0.144].

Analysis showed that whole-hand grasping ability predicted gaze behavior in a marginally significant way ( n = 33, β = .34, t (31) = 2.02, p = .052, R 2 = .12).

For positive affect (PANAS), a marginally significant time × group interaction was found (Wald χ 2 (3) = 7.722, p = 0.052), with no between‐group differences at any time point (all p s > 0.05).

There was a significant interaction between location and condition, F (2, 100) = 6.281, p = 0.003, np 2 = 0.112, and a marginally significant interaction between time, location, and condition, F (2, 100) = 3.047, p = 0.052, np 2 = 0.057.

Furthermore, we found that five tracts also showed significant or marginally significant (i.e., p = 0.052) between-person variance in change slopes (FMIN, SLF, IFOF, ATR, UNC), indicating that participants differed substantially from each other with regard to FA changes in these tracts.

The difference between the base group and the negative reinforcement group in the expected condition was marginally significant ( p = 0.052).

3 ) with marginally significant activation in one left hemisphere channel (channel2_2 t(11)=-2.01, p = .052).

Four or more emergency room visits were marginally significant, with lower likelihood compared to no visits ( p = .052).

Differences in number of participants in the two groups who changed medication were marginally significant, Fisher's Exact Test , p = 0.052.

Age at PA diagnosis was a marginally significant risk factor ( p = 0.052) that could have reached significance with a larger sample size.

The main effect of group was marginally significant ( F = 3.965, p = 0.052, η 2 p = 0.068).

The racial or ethnic disparity in medication use among those who had previously displayed below-average levels of externalizing problem behaviors was marginally significant (RR = 1.55, p = .052).

A marginally significant post hoc test showed greater Week 4 step counts in the individual message group than in the automated group (17.7 and 14.0 steps/min, respectively; p = 0.052).

In the fully adjusted model, for participants with CKM syndrome, the hazard ratios (HRs) per 10 mL/min/1.73m 2 increase in eGFRdiff were 0.88 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.93] for all-cause mortality and 0.90 [95%CI, 0.81 to 1.00] for cardiovascular mortality, with the latter being marginally significant ( p = 0.052) ( Table 3 ).

In a case-only analysis a marginally significant difference was detected between males and females overall (p = 0.0520) and in GBM (p = 0.0428) (Supplemental Table 1 ).

The univariate analysis also reveals a trend for FC to reduce the increase in financial difficulty, which is marginally significant (β = −0.18 ± 0.094, p = 0.052) ( Table 3 ).

The correct sentence should read: “However, in contrast with all other measures, the predicted increase for MI results is marginally significant: MI, T2 > T1, paired t(12) = -2.16, p = 0.052.” There is an error in reference 54.

The overall model for changes in PAC-QOL score was marginally significant, with low explanatory power (adjusted R 2 = 0.025, P = 0.052).

There was a marginally significant positive relationship between the biomass of A. syriaca per site and the number of “complete” pollinia on honeybee individuals ( t 159 = 2.748, p = .052; Figure 2 b), as well as a significant relationship with the number of corpusculum only that were attached per honeybee ( t 159 = 5.190, p < .001; Figure 2 d), the proportion of pollinia vectored ( t 159 = 6.047, p < .001) (Figure 2 f), and the total (pollinia + corpusculum only) ( t 159 = 4.695, p = .116).

There was a marginally significant ( P < 0.052) genotype by nutrient interaction effect and strong main effects on relative sorghum biomass loss ( Table 5 ).

Simple effects analyses indicated the effect was significant for happy primes, F (1, 83) = 10.19, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.11, and marginally significant for sad primes, F (1, 18) = 3.87, p = 0.052, η p 2 = 0.05.

In the first model, empathy was a marginally significant predictor of everyday creativity ( p = .052, β = 0.19, adjusted R 2 = .03).