“marginally significant”

Pairwise comparisons without P -value adjustment showed significant differences between no-magnet control and head treatments ( t =2.642, P =0.012) and between head and posterior carapace treatments ( t =−2.161, P =0.036), as well as a marginally significant difference between head and mid-carapace treatments ( t =−2.004, P =0.052), all in keeping with the hypothesis that magnetoreceptors are in the head.

The frequency of RAS mutation differed between the two groups, although there was a marginally significant difference ( P = 0.052).

Increasing numbers of targets attained were also associated, in a graded fashion, with decreased mortality ( P = 0.030), fewer hospital admissions and days ( P < 0.001 for both), and lower costs ( P = 0.029); these trends remained statistically significant for all outcomes after adjustment ( P < 0.001), except cost, which was marginally significant ( P = 0.052).

The N effect was marginally significant, b = .57, z = 1.94, p = .052, CI [−.005, 1.14], OR = 1.77.

In univariate analysis, all family members sleeping regularly under bed net was marginally significant (P = 0.052).

The advantage of the independent commission starts to become apparent at the Moderately Effective level, where it has marginally significant positive effect ( p = 0.052) with a coefficient of 1.736.

A marginally significant increase in the expression of CD31 protein ( p =0.052) was observed in the PF127+CS+miR-200b-3p group compared with that in the PF127+Lipo+miR-200b-3p group, suggesting that a pro-angiogenic effect of CS may exist in the healing wound.

It is worth noting that the externalizing PC was marginally significant at P = 0.052.

Previously screened The variation of the self-sampling effect by previous screening history was marginally significant ( P = 0.052), with the strongest effects observed among women screened less than 5 years ago and women without registered screening.

There was a marginally significant difference in the proportion of severe visual loss with a visual acuity of 20 / 200 or less at the final visit among ON subgroups ( p = 0.052).

In the peri-COVID-19 group, the interaction between touch and object was marginally significant ( F (1, 42) = 4.004, P = .052, partial η 2 = .087).

This analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between relationship history and evolutionary information ( F (1,195) = 4.80, p = 0.052, partial η 2 = .018), and a significant main effect of partner history ( F (1.195) = 7.19, p = .008, partial η 2 = .034).

Mediation analysis revealed that uric acid (mediation effect = −0.003, p<0.001) and GGT (mediation effect = −0.004, p = 0.004) had significant mediation effects, while the mediating effect of serum albumin was marginally significant (p = 0.052) ( Figure 3B ).

The completion of treatment was significant in the population (p=0.034), and eradication was marginally significant (p=0.052) (Table 2 ).

Nevertheless, a marginally significant effect of social influence was found also in the Het Group ( β = 0.02 , χ 2 (1) = 3.78, P = 0.052).

The difference in IQ (controls: M = 111 ( SD = 12); ADHD: M = 104 ( SD = 13) between groups was marginally significant ( F (1, 45) = 3.99, p = .052).

All risk categories showed significantly higher self-perceived knowledge compared to minimal risk: low risk (OR 2.27; p < 0.001), medium risk (OR 2.13; p < 0.001), and high risk (OR 1.62; p = 0.052, marginally significant).

For the fully expanded leaves, the difference was much larger and there was a marginally significant interaction between heat and drought (p=0.052), suggesting that the effect of heat on LT was greater in combination with drought ( Figures 1C, D ).

The analysis of self-efficacy scores based on demographic variables indicated a marginally significant difference between female and male participants (39.5 ± 11.7 vs. 41.8 ± 12.3, p = 0.052).

However, analysis of KTR detected a marginally significant difference over time (F[4,48] = 2.864, P = .052, eta 2 [g] = 0.074) but not between the groups or the interaction of group and time.

As shown in Figure 4 , there was a positive, albeit marginally significant, correlation of shift work with myocardial infarction risk (OR [95 %CI]: 1.46 [1.00~2.14], p = 0.052), with similar trends observed in the four additional MR methods.

However, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between anthropomorphic cues and situational loneliness (F(1, 236) = 3.82, p = 0.052) showing that the effect of anthropomorphic cues on perceived product personalization is likely to be more pronounced when consumers experienced high (vs. low) situational loneliness.

The effect was positive and marginally significant in the conservative target condition, b = 0.06, SE = 0.03, t (410) = 1.95, p = .052.

There was a marginally significant correlation between macrovascular invasion and severe PHLF (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% CI, 0.990–8.276; p = 0.052).

Female+Bi-sexual) and variation in group size (P = 0.022, Table 2 ), and a marginally significant interaction for variation in sex ratio (P = 0.052, Table 2 ).