“marginally significant”

In the model which accounted for the time-to-first event, single use of expedited programmes correlated inversely to the chance of safety events (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; p=0.009), while triple or more use had marginally significant higher risk (adjusted HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.53; p=0.055).

While the trends are similar across segments, linkers, and loops; the enrichment of mild variants in termini contributed to a marginally significant difference in the cumulative distribution as measured by the Anderson-Darling test (p = 0.055) ( S3 Fig ).

We found a marginally significant main effect of crossing the mission boundary ( p = 0.055) on confidence, indicating higher confidence in correct responses when participants were within the mission boundary compared to when they crossed the mission boundary (Table 2 ).

Given that the variable ‘Allele x’ had a marginally significant effect (Wald test X2 = 3.7, P = 0.055), the effect of minor alleles could not be neglected.

To investigate directly the difference between schema‐updating and schema‐violating trials, we followed up with another linear mixed‐effects model that only included data from schema‐updating and schema‐violating trials, which showed a marginally significant difference ( b = 3.03, SE = 1.58, t = 1.92, p = 0.055, 95% CI [−9.46, 5.78], partial R 2 = 0.0018).

There was a marginally significant inverse relationship between physical dominance and D f for those with highly dominant content only (β = −0.20, p = 0.055).

Results: Significant differences were found in the raw cognitive scores between patients and HC [semantic fluency ( t = 6.07; p < 0.001), verbal memory ( t = 6.63; p < 0.001), and executive functions ( t = 2.57; p = 0.013), and in visual memory ( t = 1.97; p = 0.055 marginally significant)].

AMH levels exhibited a marginally significant positive trend (OR 1.124; 95% CI 0.997–1.286; p = 0.055).

Vectorial Capacity models Assuming an equal survivorship of 0.85 for adult females from both high and low-density treatments, there was a marginally significant effect of larval competition on vectorial capacity at the 6-day IP (F = 5.65, df = 1,6; P = 0.055) but not at the 9 (F = 0.94, df = 1,6; P = 0.37) or 12-day IP (F = 0.36, df = 1,6; P = 0.56) or cVC (F = 0.20, df = 1,7; P = 0.66) (Fig 4A and 4B ).

When we repeated the analysis using the negative value of FIB-4 < 1.45 (rule out criterion for the presence of LF), we found an inverse association between low FIB-4 score and AEs at univariable OR: 0.45, 95%CI 0.24–0.86, p = 0.015, a marginally significant value at multivariable analysis (using Model A variables) with OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.30–1.01, p = 0.055).

Additional comparison between Experimental Groups 1 and 2 revealed a trend-level difference in employee inventive behavior ( p = 0.086), marginally significant variations in FOCC ( p = 0.055), and significant differential impacts in job insecurity ( p = 0.026).

A marginally significant difference between two measurements can only be shown for the start time across the events (main effect “measurement”: F (1,8) = 5.0, P ≤ 0.055), but not for the duration or end time.

However, while the impact of depression was higher among families affected by COVID-19 compared to those not affected by COVID-19 (35% vs 22%), the significance level was marginally significant ( P =.055), possibly due to the sample size.

While the family structure was not associated with anger dysregulation, there was a marginally significant relationship between family structure and deviance propensity ( p = 0.055) (i.e., a direct effect).

38%) was marginally significant between the PCI group and the non-PCI group ( P = 0.055).

Second, an additional interaction between norm violation and effect turned out to be marginally significant p = 0.055, with Pearson (χ 2 = 29.978; p = 0.569) and Cox & Snell = 0.496.

Negative Facial Expression showed the same pattern as Vocalization, but its path from the occurrence rate at age 9 months to the autonomy score at age 18 months was marginally significant and the estimate of standardized regression weight was −.18 ( P = .055).

There was also a marginally significant Current Congruence × Previous Congruence interaction, F (2.59, 282) = 2.69, p = .055, η p 2 = .024, indicating conflict adaptation effects.

Whereas in the right S1 we observed marginally significant activity in the CS+ compared to the CS− (M CS+ (SEM) = 0.18(0.04), M CS− (SEM) = 0.10(0.04), p = 0.055, two-tailed), in left S1 we observed significantly greater activity in the CS− compared to the CS+ condition (M CS+ (SEM) = 0.29(0.06), M CS− (SEM) = 0.39(0.05), p < 0.05, two-tailed).

The main effect of time was marginally significant ( F (1, 283) = 3.702, p = 0.055, η p 2 = 0.013), the main effect of group was not significant ( F (1, 283) = 0.471, p = 0.493, η p 2 = 0.002), but the time × group interaction was significant ( F (1, 283) = 10.409, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.035).

In terms of the binding foundations, need for closure ( b = .30, SE = .11, β = .18, p < .01) was again a positive predictor, whereas empathy was a marginally significant negative predictor ( b = -.21, SE = .11, β = -.13, p = .055).

Table 2 also shows a marginally significant effect for the PII (F (2,50) = 3.01; p = .055), and PIx3 concerning the high frequency band (F (2,50) = 2.99, p = .056); these parameters trended to be higher for the SFT than for the FT and SIT tasks.

PERMDISP indicated that differences in dispersion among the different stand age classes were marginally significant for ground-dwelling beetles ( P = 0.055; Fig 2B ) and significant for flying beetles ( P = 0.015; Fig 2C ).

This interaction was marginally significant, F ( 1 , 350 ) = 3.70, p < 0.055, [ η p 2 ] = 0.010.

There was a marginally significant ( p = .055) interaction between adolescent mean positive emotion and positive emodiversity on caregiver anxious symptoms, which we cautiously interpreted given that the confidence interval did not contain 0.