“marginally significant”

42.9%) and the difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

The first model was marginally significant [ F (1,632) = 12.15, Δ R 2 = 0.006, p = 0.053] and the second was statistically significant [Δ F (1,631) = 5.51, Δ R 2 = 0.009, p = 0.019].

MGMT methylation had a marginally significant improvement in OS (HR = 0.43, 0.18–1.01, p = 0.053).

Working memory mediated the relation between group and figural creativity ( Z = 2.034, P = 0.041) and was marginally significant for verbal creativity ( Z = 1.930, P = 0.053).

Mann-Whitney U test between Groups 2 and 3 (Group 1 was bypassed due to small sample size) showed a marginally significant difference in BLL value changes from baseline (p = 0.053).

Effects of the narrative intervention Effects of the narrative intervention compared to pre-test scores The results of the paired samples t -test comparing pre-test scores and post-test scores in condition A show that there was a marginally significant difference between pre-test scores and post-test scores safer sex communication intentions with a sexual partner, t (70) = −1.97, p = .053, and a significant difference between pre-test scores and post-test scores for safer sex communication intentions with friends, t (71) = −3.01, p < .01.

Correlations between p-tau and dprime were marginally significant (R = −0.226; P = .053).

For Conscientiousness, the direct effect on attitudes toward climate change was found to be marginally significant, b = 0.088, SE = 0.045, z = 1.939, p = 0.053, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.00096 to 0.1770.

Overall, these different forms of interteaching-to-interteaching comparisons yielded a small and marginally significant summary effect size ( g = 0.298, p = .053, 95% CI [− 0.004 to 0.601]).

The simple slope of mu suppression at C4 in the Video-Only condition when controlling for all the other variables was marginally significant (β = −0.15 [−0.30, −0.00], t = −1.94, P = 0.053).

Results showed that patients with ACS following the experimental strategy had a lower risk of the primary endpoint (2.95% versus 5.26%; HR 0.55; 95% CI [0.35–0.89]; p=0.014; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.032), driven by a lower risk of all-cause mortality (2.19% versus 4.28%; HR 0.51; 95% CI [0.30–0.87]; p=0.013; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.021), as well as a marginally significant reduced risk of bleeding (HR 0.58; 95% CI [0.33–1.01]; p=0.053; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.334) compared with patients receiving the reference regimen.[ 19 ] In the same direction, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study, a post-hoc analysis of the TWILIGHT trial, evaluated the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy compared to DAPT with aspirin plus ticagrelor in 2,342 event-free patients who had completed 3 months of DAPT.

However, among those whose eGFR values declined, the relationship was marginally significant (β=0.161, P =0.053) at study baseline.

E− Conditions Only (Normal and Opaque Sunglasses) The interaction between Belief and Group with the E− conditions was marginally significant, F (1,47) = 3.99, p = 0.053, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}$$\end{document} η p 2 = 0.077.

Planning one or more strategies was significantly associated with improved adherence; early DPP adherence was marginally significant (p=0.053) as a predictor of higher DPPOS adherence in this model.

A NT-proBNP concentration >1345 ng/L was significantly predictive for the initiation of dialysis within 60 months ( Fig 2B , p = 0.008), and marginally significant within 12 months (p = 0.053).

Finally, the ‘cost of implementing protocols: justified by benefits’ had a positive unstandardized coefficient (0.245) and was marginally significant ( p = 0.053), suggesting that while the costs are justified by the benefits, they still impact socioeconomic factors.

After dose escalation, group A (400mg TID) had marginally significant further increase in 12-hour mean DBP (p=0.053) but group B (600mg BID) did not achieve statistically significant increases (p=0.25).

A marginally significant increase in risk was observed in female patients ( P = 0.053) and IDH-wildtype patients ( P = 0.060).

Post hoc analysis using the Scheffe method revealed that the long COVID group scored significantly lower than the COVID group on speaking and listening ( ps < 0.001), and they also demonstrated poorer reading compared to the COVID group, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.053).

We also found that the differences between conventional and instrumental gestures were marginally significant ( p = .053), while there was no significance between conventional gestures and the production of symbolic gestures ( p = .065).

Cyberbullying did not significantly differ by age at sexual debut among males but showed a marginally significant difference among females ( p = 0.053).

Among patients with different levels of the TyG index, there was a marginally significant discrepancy in the risk of MACEs (P = 0.053) ( Figure 2 ).

Differences in fatigue severity over time were marginally significant ( p = 0.053) and in favor of the intervention group (Fig. 3 ).

Amplitude For N1 amplitude, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of stimuli [ F (1,23)=7.48, p =0.012] and a marginally significant effect of group [ F (2,23)=3.34, p =0.053].

Differentiation between group B and C was marginally significant (p = 0.053).