“marginally significant”

Furthermore, a marginally significant association was observed between workshop attendance and practice ( p-value = 0.058), indicating that specialized training may influence clinical actions.

In NT children, the interaction between L2 proficiency and comparison [b] was significant (Estimate = 0.201, SE = 0.073, z = 2.743, p = 0.006; Table A in Appendix S6 ), with a marginally significant positive effect of L2 proficiency on gM sentences ( p = 0.058; Table B in S6 ).

The interaction between time and group was marginally significant ( F (2,62) = 2.99; p = .058).

Diabetes mellitus was marginally significant ( p < 0.058) in a study by Chen et al, 1 but was not significant in the present study.

6C ), while the state × condition interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 71) = 3.72, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.050).

A marginally significant three-way interaction ( p = .058) was observed, suggesting a potential trend where the combined effect of immigration importance and negative arousal on PVV attitudes was most pronounced in the blame condition.

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).

Interestingly, when these variables were included in the multivariable logistic regression model only age remained positively associated with help received (psychological distress was marginally significant p = 0.058).

A marginally significant interaction of baseline NT-proBNP with time was observed (p = 0.058), with a significant interaction at 24 months post-RT (β = − 0.00051, p = 0.010), indicating a smaller increase, or even a slight decrease, among patients with higher baseline levels in contrast with the increase observed in patients with lower baseline NT-proBNP ( Fig. 1 ).

These differences were statistically significant in 2020 and marginally significant in 2018 ( p < 0.058) and 2022 ( p < 0.059) (Table 2 ).

Results In men, the results showed significant differences in the changes between the intervention and control groups in depression (p = 0.017) and distress (p = 0.029) and marginally significant differences in usual activities (p = 0.058) and sexual activity (p = 0.051).

Differences between profiles 2 and 4 were marginally significant ( p = 0.058).

For hormone-related cancers, birth order and age at menarche had the most influence on this relation, while maternal proteinuria, birth order and own parity had the most effect on non-hormonal cancer risk. Birth length and cancer risk Univariate analysis A positive and statistically significant trend was found between birth length and all cancers combined (P = 0.007), and non- hormonal cancers (P = 0.011), while a marginally significant trend was found for combined hormone-related cancers and colon cancer (P = 0.058), adjusted for gestational age.

Although this association was marginally significant in the crude model ( P = 0.058), adjustment for potential confounders strengthened the associations ( P = 0.022).

Multivariate RELATE analysis revealed a marginally significant relationship between TNFα inhibition and fatty acid composition (Rho = 0.269, p = 0.058, 9999 permutations).

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).

Effects of Stress and Housing Conditions on Locomotor Activity As shown in Figure 3 , there were marginally significant main effects of housing conditions ( F (1, 37) = 3.86, p = 0.058), but not of stress ( F (2, 37) = 1.08, p = 0.35) or of stress × housing condition interaction ( F (2, 37) = 2.56, p = 0.091).

Also, the main effect of attentional focus was marginally significant, F (1, 44) = 3.80, p = 0.058.

The model also yielded a marginally significant effect of treatment, F (1,42) = 3.79, p = 0.058, and a significant treatment by phase interaction, F (2,234) = 6.21, p = 0.002, so that the OT treatment led to longer gaze times than the placebo treatment, but only in extinction (Sequential Bonferroni, p < 0.0001).

Furthermore, each 1-SD increase in ALP level was associated with 11%, 20% and 10% higher risk of CHD, stroke and CVD events in the fully adjusted model, respectively, with the risk calculated for stroke being marginally significant (HRs (95% CI), 1.20 (0.97 to 1.49), p=0.058).

However, a marginally significant interaction between race and fitness level (p = 0.058) was noted, with RD children demonstrating a trend toward larger effect of fitness on inflammation than NHW children.

Presence of gross ulceration was marginally significant (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.95 to 18.9; p=0.058) ( Table 4 ).

The analysis indicated a marginally significant effect of group, with AVGs showing a subtle advantage for detecting T1 [ F (1, 56) = 3.76, p = 0.058].

Marginally significant difference was found for their interaction (F 1,28 = 3.92, p = 0.058 for interaction; Fig. 3b ).

Results revealed a marginally significant group × phase interaction [ F (1, 24) = 3.97, p = 0.058].