“marginally significant”

Again, we did not observe an increase in the proportion of adult mosquitoes, rather a marginally significant decrease with VIT8× (Fig. 1A , proportion of adults: p < 0.0001; AUX vs GF, VIT4×, or VIT8×: p < 0.0001; GF vs VIT4×: p = 0.73; GF vs VIT8×: p = 0.058; Supplementary Data 2 ).

This analysis revealed that samples of genotype SBb display significantly lower relative amounts of SiOR89 (by 50%) and marginally significant for SiOR88 (by 37%), as compared with SBB samples from either monogyne or polygyne colonies ( fig. 1 c ; P < 0.0001 and P = 0.07, respectively, Tukey post hoc tests following a mixed effects model analysis).

Using α=0.05 as the significance threshold, our analysis revealed a highly significant difference at F442 ( P < 0.0001) and a marginally significant difference at F447 ( P = 0.0468).

Among patients without indication, prestroke antiplatelet use was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56–0.96; P=0.0221), but longer hospital stay (OR 1.03, 95% CI: 1–1.07; P=0.0327), and more recurrence of ischemic stroke and TIA (OR 1.59, 95% CI: 1.48–1.70; P<0.0001); while among patients with indication, there was a marginally significant inverse association of prestroke antiplatelet use with NIHSS ≥16 (P<0.0001) and mRS ≥2 (P=0.0003), and prestroke antiplatelet use was not associated with length of hospital stay, recurrence of ischemic stroke and TIA, or mortality.

rigaudi and marginally significant for E. artemiae ( t = −6.7 and −2.2, P < 0.0001 and P = 0.05, respectively).

Comparative statistical analysis revealed highly significant differences between the late/early improvement ratio for sleep and that of cognitions/mood ( p = 0.0001), significant differences with re-experiencing ( p = 0.0094), a marginally significant difference with avoidance ( p = 0.0541), and no significant difference with arousal ( p = 0.1383).

Those shifts ranged from a modest four-percentage-point increase in support of legalization to a substantial 12-point jump in the share who said it us “safe for pit bulls to live in residential neighborhoods.” The differences in percentages from 2014 to 2018 for the first three questions in Figure 1 are all highly significant ( p < 0.0001), while the four-point difference in support for legalization shown in the final column of the figure is marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

For example, the WTCCC [13] required a marginally significant (p-value<10 −4 ) GWAS SNP to support the evidence at a genome-wide significant imputed SNP.

For exposure assessment ( Figure 9 ), there was a marginally significant association between UPF intake and risk of CRC (RR = 1.27; 95%CI: 1.15–1.42, p < 0.0001) in FFQ, and the heterogeneity was more heterogeneity ( p = 0.008; I 2 = 63.3%).

Remaining 16 IA-predicting candidate loci (6 intergenic, 8 intronic, and 2 synonymous SNPs; log10BF > 6.1 and p < 5 × 10 –8 ) were not accompanied by any neighbor promotor or functional variations such as UTR, missense, and nonsense SNPs that showed both moderate to strong LD (0.5 < r 2 < 1) and marginally significant associations ( p < 0.0001, data not shown).

Differences within groups were marginally significant or non‐significant, while the difference among groups was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

60 min: adjusted p = 0.151) or marginally significant (e.g., 70 vs. 50 min: adjusted p = 0.0001), and declined slightly thereafter.

Substitution saturation is marginally significant for the SKL1 family (p = 0.07) and highly significant for the SK family (p<0.0001).

We performed a sensitivity analysis to test the reliability of the meta-analysis, which showed that removing any one study would not lead to a marginally significant difference between the two groups ( P < 0.0001; Supplementary Figs. 35–36 ).

Immune-related genes and marginally significant LD blocks ( P< 1.1E-04) immediately adjacent to significant association clusters were also examined as potential candidates.

These effects on theta power included: a highly significant reduction at frontal sites (p = 1.55×10 −4 ) and a marginally significant reduction at parietal sites (p = 0.0499) in Sp4 hypomorphic animals, as well as a slight but significant increase at occipital sites (p = 0.0203) in wildtype animals ( Fig 4B ).

Disease had a highly significant ( p = 0.00017) impact on cell composition and steroid use was marginally significant ( p = 0.04680).

Post-hoc analysis of the marginally significant interaction (T x Day, Table 2 ) revealed significant effects of temperature on Day 11 (linear contrast with Bonferroni correction; Ζ = −4.045, p = 0.0002), but no difference between temperatures on Days 9 and 10.

In Model 2 (NB Regression with Region), only episodes remained highly significant (β = 0.00505, SE = 0.00137, z = 3.69, p = 0.0002), while latitude became marginally significant ( p = 0.096); area lost significance ( p = 0.119).

p ‐values estimated by Mantel tests were highly significant or significant at p = .0002–.009 in nine cases and marginally significant at p = .061 in one case.

There was significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 64%, p = 0.1) so a random effects model was used, and the results revealed a marginally significant association between CGGGG Indel polymorphisms in the IRF5 gene and pSS, with a pooled OR and 95% CI of 1.69 (1.27, 2.24) ( z = 3.60, p = 0.0003, Fig. 3b ).

After adjustment for confounders, apoJ at baseline and at 18 months was marginally significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons ( P = .0004).

Two SNPs located in genes that were implicated by previous GWA studies of ALS were marginally significant in the pooled analysis of discovery and replication samples: rs17174381 in DPP6 (p = 4.4×10 −4 ) and rs6985069 near ELP3 (p = 4.8×10 −4 ).

The np-MANOVA based on the first two coordinates of individuals in MDS clearly demonstrated highly significant differences between sexes ( F = 175.89, P = 0.0005) and marginally significant differences among populations ( F = 1.95, P = 0.07).

We further estimate gene-based noncoding DNMs by segment-based test in the intergenic region, and only CSMD1 reached statistically significant ( p = 2.79 × 10 −7 ) in SPARK and marginally significant ( p = 5.47 × 10 −4 ) in SSC ( Table S8 ).