“marginally significant”

Pooling of effect size showed a marginally significant protective effect between the highest and lowest levels of physical activity (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84–1.00, I 2 = 42.3%, p = 0.02) seen in Fig. 3 .

Samples frozen for 4 to 7 d at −80°C, then thawed and refrozen at −20°C for an additional 2 d and measured in-house, had higher protein C activity than control samples; this difference was marginally significant ( P < .02).

Individuals who consumed more coffee presented marginally significant more RA of Fusobacteria ( P = 0.02, FDR = 0.20) in their gut microbiota compared to those reporting low or no coffee intake, but the RA of Fusobacteria was significantly higher in smokers compared to non-smokers ( P = 0.009, FDR = 0.027).

All methods except Pagel’s λ detected a marginally significant phylogenetic signal in the K. pneumoniae core genome (Supplementary Data 3 [first tab]; 0.11 > P > 0.02).

However, in gamma band the interaction effect was significant in low (uncorrected p = 0.01 , qFDR = 0.0427, 10,000 permutations) and marginally significant for high gamma (uncorrected p = 0.02 , qFDR = 0.08 , 10,000 permutations).

A marginally significant difference in median oxygen flow rate before bronchoscopy was noted between the Jackson group and the conventional group ( P = .02).

In contrast to the global ancestry estimates noted above, these local ancestry estimates at the MYH9 locus, did show a significant association with non-diabetic ESKD status in the Hispanic American population ( P = 0.0002 for Welch's two-sample t -test, P = 0.0009 for Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and marginally significant association in the African American population ( P = 0.02 for Welch's two-sample t -test, P = 0.06 for Kolmogorov–Smirnov test).

FUT status and growth indicators Delta changes in WLZ were significantly higher in Lewis positive compared to Lewis negative children and delta change in WAZ were also marginally significant and higher in Lewis positive children ( p = 0.02 and 0.07, respectively).

For AP-Phe-Az and AP-Prop-Tyr, the corresponding theoretical AP proportions tended to be slightly increased, which was found to be marginally significant ( p = 0.02–0.03).

There is a small but marginally significant difference (p = 0.02, t-test) between the mean copy number of the Ethiopian HIV-only and the HIV-TB co-infected cohort, although this is not replicated in the smaller Tanzanian cohort (p = 0.69).

In addition, the ADJ-L segmentation pipeline presented higher DSC than ADJ-G ( p = 0.0034), NORM-G ( p < 0.001) and NORM-L ( p = 0.02 marginally significant) as shown in Figure 5 .

In the UK Biobank, rs6424532 [ LOC105378800 ] had a statistically significant indirect effect on broad depression through the log of pack-years of cigarette smoking ( p = 4.0 × 10 −4 ) among all participants and a marginally significant indirect effect among females ( p = 0.02) and males ( p = 4.0 × 10 −3 ).

The overall HR of 0.88 favours the addi- tion of platinum and is marginally significant (P = 0.02) (Figure lA and B).

(2017) [ 14 ] concluded that MS did not accelerate age-related cognitive changes, upon closer examination of their results, CVLT-II showed a marginally significant trend ( p = 0.02, exceeding their threshold of 0.01), suggesting more rapid decline in verbal learning in MS due to older age.

This association remained marginally significant with multivariate logistic regression; OR 1.0 (95%CI; 1.0–1.1, P = 0.02) ( Table 3 ).

The difference between groups GV (87%) and V (53%) was marginally significant (corrected α = 0.017, Z = 1.99, P = 0.02), though the difference between groups G (67%) and V (53%) was non-significant ( Z = 0.74, P = 0.23), and the difference between groups GV (87%) and G (67%) was not significant either ( Z = 1.29, P = 0.09).

Another study involving the same participants showed a marginally significant association between excessive polypharmacy and prolonged hospital stay (parameter estimate = 0.20; R 2 value = 0.01; p ‐value = 0.02) (Jeong et al. 2018 ).

A marginally significant simple main effect of type of pre-activation was observed within match trials, F (1, 29) = 6.66, p = 0.02, η 2 ρ = 0.19, but not in mismatch trials, F (1, 29) = 2.22, p = 0.15, η 2 ρ = 0.07.

In this study, IELSG score showed marginally significant difference between BCL-6 (+) and BCL-6 (-) ( P = 0.02).

The pooled HR is 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98), indicating a marginally significant overall effect (P = 0.02).

There was a marginally significant interaction for semantic similarity [F(4, 13,766) = 2.92, p = 0.02, η 2 = .001]; however, given the sample sizes involved in this analysis, a marginally significant result is unlikely to be meaningful.

Finally, inclination toward Combined subtype had a marginally significant association with mean RT in go trials [ B = -1.01, t (50) = 2.4, p = 0.02], explaining 11% of variance [ F (2,50) = 3.07, p = 0.05, R 2 = 0.11, R 2 adj = 0.07].

There was a marginally significant interaction effect between group and block, F (5, 40) = 3.07, p < .02, η 2 = .28 (see Fig. 1 ).

If the same test was done within REP, however, it would have been marginally significant ( p = 0.02, i.e., below 0.05, although above the 0.005 used in this study).

Time was a marginally significant factor (F = 2.3, p-value = 0.02).