“marginally significant”

Levels of hs-troponin I seemed to increase immediately after sauna in males, but this change was very small and marginally significant (0.002–0.005 ng/mL; p = 0.058) (Table 3 ).

Furthermore, as expected, the males we studied showed higher mean social ADI-R score (20.1 ± 5.9) than females ([17.4 ± 5.6; although the two-sample t -test showed only a marginally significant difference between sexes ( p -value = 0.058)].

After accounting for the influences of the pre-exposure covariates, causal mediation analysis using the IOW approach showed that SHS exposure at home had a non-significant NDE (OR NDE =1.40; 95% CI: 0.90–2.17, p=0.133), marginally significant NIE (OR NIE =1.12; 95% CI: 1.00–1.26, p=0.058) jointly mediated through asthma and self-reported smoking status with a proportion of 29.6% mediated effect on the likelihood of atopic dermatitis ( Table 2 ).

The results from the 2 (group)*2 (phase) ANOVA for neutral primes indicated a marginally significant effect of phase (F(1,63) = 3.714, p = 0.058).

Crucially, the analysis revealed a marginally significant Interaction Type × Noise interaction effect, F (1, 285) = 3.62, p = .058, η 2 = .01.

Because of the small number of the patients in this subgroup (N = 28), only history of myocardial infarction was observed to be marginally significant (OR = 10.7 [0.92–124.38], p = 0.058).

Difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.058).

In 2016, differences were marginally significant ( p = 0.058), due to a high variability among samples.

Percentage of hits and misses Regarding Hits, there were significant main effects for Matches [F 3, 111 = 36.8, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.50, op = 1.0] and marginally significant effects for Groups [F 1, 37 = 3.81, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.09, op = 0.09], as well as a significant interaction between Groups and Matches [F 3, 111 = 4.69, p = 0.018, η p 2 = 0.11, op = 0.72].

No other main or interaction effects were significant, all F s < 2.4, all p s > 0.1, except for a marginally significant training × food type × time interaction, F (1,114) = 3.67, p = .058, η p 2 = 0.03.

As a result, the multivariate test revealed no significant effects of the covariates age and gender, both F < 1, but a marginally significant effect of the covariate IQ, F (4,34) = 2.54, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.23.

In a similar vein, two-sample t -tests between 6-year-old TD and 8-year-old ASD children showed a marginally significant effect for saccades between the target and the relational location, t (43.74) = 1.95, p = 0.058, but no effects for saccades between the target and the non-relational location, t (44) = 0.82, p = 0.419.

This trend continued in 2018 with the Reference group scoring lower than the Dance group, although this difference was marginally significant (β = −0.2415, p = 0.058).

When comparing P3b amplitudes across time, the hypothesized interaction between Stimulus Type, Testing Session, and Group was marginally significant, F (1,22) = 4.01, p = 0.058, ω 2 = 0.007; there was also a significant interaction of Testing Session and Group F (1,22) = 14.58, p < 0.001,ω 2 = 0.025.

The difference in length of hospital stay between NSAIDs users and non-users was marginally significant (p = 0,058, Mann-Whitney Test ).

In addition, we can note a marginally significant result (p = 0.058) for the intervention effect in reducing the prevalence of lack of control over drinking behavior (OR adj = 0.55, 95%CI 0.30–1.02).

Thus, the marginally significant chi-square ( p = 0.058) for a different male–female distribution of age of seizure onset may be due to the relatively small number of females with seizures in the cohort.

Global Disorganization of CT Networks in HA Patients Among the four morphological networks examined, only the CT network showed marginally significant differences in shortest path length among the three groups ( F = 2.872, p = 0.058).

It yielded a significant main effect of time point [ F (1,19) = 6.87; p = 0.017] and a marginally significant main effect of synchronicity [ F (1,19) = 4.08; p = 0.058], indicating that the proprioceptive drift toward the RH tended to be larger in the condition with synchronous stroking.

In addition, we discovered marginally significant interactions between GRS and N6/N3 in crude (β = 1.92, 95% CI: -0.06 to 3.91, P = 0.058) and adjusted (age and energy) (β = 2.00, 95% CI: -0.05 to 4.05, P = 0.057) models on the MUH obesity phenotype.

The mixed effects model testing the affective pathway hypothesis showed that, after accounting for autocorrelation, between‐person negative affect significantly predicted psychotic experiences ( b = 0.42, SE = 0.10, p < .001), and momentary negative affect was a marginally significant predictor ( b = 0.17, SE = 0.09, p = .058).

ΔHbO changes At the ROI level, there was no significant interaction or main effects of “task” and “group” on the ΔHbO of both sides’ DLPFC, M1, or PMC/SMA ( p > 0.05, Table 2 ); although the I PMC/SMA showed a marginally significant interaction effect [ F (1,28) = 3.923, p = 0.058, ηp2 = 0.123].

In this combined model, the unique influence of age on FB performance was found to be marginally significant ( χ 2 (2) = 5.711, p = .058), suggesting that, when controlling for receptive vocabulary acquisition, age may have a limited unique contribution to the probability of giving different responses.

Interestingly, we found a marginally significant positive correlation between intratumor difference of T‐cell clonality and clonal TMB in LP ( P = 0.058, r = 0.94; Fig. 4D ), implying the association of clonal mutational burden and immune microenvironment.

Additionally, PTE showed significant effects for individuals aged 17–59 (SMD = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.11~1.75, p = 0.027) and had marginally significant effects on improving EFs in adults aged 59 and older (SMD = 0.62, 95%CI = −0.02~1.25, p = 0.058). 4.