The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) was marginally significant (p=0.05749).
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
Although ED LOS was marginally significant, ( p = 0.0575), with significant pressure on EDs from overcrowding, 45 min reduction in length of stay could be considered clinically important.
For colon cancer, TG showed a marginally significant association (HR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.99–1.55; I 2 = 52.0%; p = 0.0576).
Furthermore, MR significantly upregulated the mRNA expression of Psd‐95 ( p < 0.01) and Bdnf ( p < 0.05) in AD+Sh‐NC mice compared with those fed ND, but brain FGFR1 knockdown offset these beneficial effects, with Psd‐95 showing a marginally significant decrease ( p = 0.0576) and Bdnf showing a significant reduction ( p < 0.05) (Figure 6J ; Figure S5B ).
Using results from both treatment periods, a marginally significant between-group difference favoring eculizumab was seen with respect to change in QMG score ( p = 0.0577).
The results for non-expanded coefficients are in line with the previous model, positive for proportion of people aged 15-24 and 55-64 years (the latter with a marginally significant value of p = 0.0577), negative for proportions of seniors, unemployed, and immigrants, and positive for proportion of English speakers and highly educated population.
Watershed was a significant predictor variable in the PFOS model ( χ 2 [df] = 11.63 [4], p = 0.0203) (Table S4 ), and while pairwise contrasts of watersheds were generally not significant (with the exception of the marginally significant Lake Ontario/Lake Superior contrast; p = 0.0577), modeled PFOS concentrations increased from west to east: Lake Superior < Lake Michigan ≅ Lake Huron < Lake Erie < Lake Ontario (Table 1 ; Figure 3 and Figure S6 ).
The increase from pre- to post-diagnosis in using a melanoma picture during self-exams was marginally significant (χ 2 = 3.60, p = .0578).
Conversely, GDP per capita shows a weaker positive correlation with TP (0.2986, p = 0.1664) and a marginally significant correlation with TC (0.4012, p = 0.0578), suggesting that while per capita wealth may influence citation impact, its effect on publication volume is less pronounced.
Odds ratios were calculated and showed that lower expression in EVs was significantly associated with the occurrence of ccRCC in almost all cases and marginally significant for SNORD26 ( p = 0.0578).
There was a marginally significant interaction of stimulus familiarity and participant group, F (2, 54) = 3.01, p = 0.0578.
There was a marginally significant correlation between loss of Beclin 1 expression and lymph node metastasis (P=0.0579).
The intervention package also had a marginally significant impact ( P = 0.0579) on the reported motivation to analyze VPD data, as the mean Likert scale responses in the intervention group increased by 0.41 while the mean responses decreased by 0.59 in the control group pre and post-test.
Relationships of drought-tolerance diversity with community stability were weak: We found a marginally significant positive effect of functional diversity of stomatal control on community stability ( t = 1.92, P = 0.058) but no significant relationship with functional diversity of resistance-acquisition ( t = 1.12, P = 0.27; fig.
However, there were significant sex-related differences between clusters for Period 2, χ 2 (3, N = 220) = 15.38, p = 0.002; for Period 3, χ 2 (3, N = 190) = 7.92, p = 0.047; and (marginally significant) for Period 4, χ 2 (3, N = 162) = 7.39, p = 0.058.
In opposition, only a marginally significant difference was observed for MEG8 ( Figure 2 e, p = 0.058).
The regression model was marginally significant, R 2 = 0.35, F (7, 36) = 2.25, p = 0.058; Table 5 shows the results.
Following a period OFF-stimulation, the Y-BOCS score lowered by 4.52 ± 1.73 [95% CI = (−7.90, −0.67)], constituting a marginally significant change ( t = −2.60, p = 0.0580).
For “Dislike,” MA increased scores at TP 6 for group P1 [ p = 0.013], had no significant treatment effects for group P2, and showed a marginally significant reduction compared to PBO for group P4 at TP 4 [ p = 0.058].
OA showed marginally significant lower use of rEV information [mean SD rEV r 2 values YA: 0.40 0.13, OA: 0.35 0.13, between group difference t (97) = 1.92, p = 0.058, d = 0.40], without alteration in the use of pWIN information [mean SD pWIN r 2 values YA: 0.03 0.04, OA: 0.04 0.04, between group difference t (96) = 1.27, p = 0.21, d = 0.27].
Although an increase was observed in Zn group, it became marginally significant with a slight difference compared to the reference ( p =.058).
The data were analysed by the Mann-Whitney U test and showed that FGF10 gene expression had a marginally significant correlation with the patient’s sex (P<0.058).
The regression model explained 14.0% of the variance in this criterion variable, which was marginally significant [ F (3, 49) = 2.668, p = 0.058].
Only Enabling factors as a group (income, social support, neighborhood safety and competing needs) offered marginally significant predictive power ( p = 0.058).
There was a marginally significant effect of motion type, F(1,56) = 3.74, p<.058, Partial Eta Squared = .06, such that flying participants reported more presence than helicopter participants.