“marginally significant”

The global trend test did not confirm a statistically significant difference between the conventional quintiles ( P = 0.21), while for the residual quintiles the differences were marginally significant ( P = 0.060).

Longer walking times in the frail-risk group were marginally significant ( p =0.06).

The map length varied between crosses, with 3D7 × HB3 highest (17.7 Morgans), HB3 × Dd2 intermediate (16.0 Morgans), and 7G8 × GB4 lowest (14.3 Morgans), although this difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.06, Kruskal-Wallis H-test) ( Fig. 3 A).

A pink dot marked those values with p < 0.01 and a green dot was used to mark marginally significant results with p < 0.06.

Left hemisphere analyses revealed marginally significant group differences [ F (1, 10) = 4.2, p = 0.06] and no main effects of region ( p = 0.13) or interactions ( p = 0.66).

Differences between treatment and placebo were marginally significant (p = .06), and N1 amplitude was correlated with serum levels of drug suggesting some reduction in abnormally elevated N1 amplitude with BPN14770 [ 11 , 16 ].

Manipulation check As Table 2 shows, for absolute change in mean values for the motive of kin care before and after the intervention, ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of the group assignment [ F (2, 966) = 11.274, p = 0.06].

Younger patients (age <65) could get marginally significant OS benefit rather than PFS benefit from ICIs (univariate: HR 1.526, P=0.060; multivariate: HR 1.593, P=0.050).

Results of the analyses on latency showed a significant difference between long-time priming ( M = 744 ms) and short-time priming ( M = 673 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 46.10, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.56, F 2 (1,22) = 30.91, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.58, and a marginally significant, but unreliable 17-ms, difference between long-time concepts ( M = 717 ms) and short-time concepts ( M = 700 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 3.81, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, F 2 (1,22) < 1, ns.

The difference between ES and NS was marginally significant (H = 3.57, p = 0.06).

The results showed that the difference in the inverse efficiency score between English and Chinese words was marginally significant ( t (22) = −1.94, p = .06).

Comparison of the ROC curves revealed no significant difference in the clinical values of ChE and CRP ( P =0.93) or those of cholinesterase and IL-6 ( P =0.99), although the clinical values of ChE and PCT exhibited a marginally significant difference ( P =0.06).

The Egger’s test was marginally significant for a possible publication bias for studies of anxiety ( p = 0.06), but the trim-and-fill analysis left the SMD unchanged.

The personal importance participants attached to rationality (IRS) had only a marginally significant effect on willingness to volunteer, b = 0.27, SE = 0.15, t (281) = 1.86, p = .06.

For Theravada meditation, we observed a marginally significant main effect of Condition (Rest, Kasina, Vipassana): F(2,18) = 3.2, p = 0.06.

Regarding insurance status, a marginally significant association was identified (F = 3.14, p = 0.06).

There was also a marginally significant interaction effect between negative body image and weight status ( β = 0.67, p = 0.06) ( Table 2 ).

6A ) and running exerted a marginally significant inhibitory effect ( P = 0.06 for main effect of running), but there was no significant interaction effect ( P = 0.86).

friend lower rating) on the N400 amplitude revealed a marginally significant main effect of direction, with the friend higher condition eliciting a more negative N400 than the friend lower condition, F (1, 32) = 3.90, P = 0.06 ( Fig. 2B ).

The direct effects of growth mindset on psychological well-being and school engagement in this group are marginally significant ( p = 0.060 and p = 0.054, respectively).

They also found – although marginally significant - decreased ERN (p = 0.06) in BDs when compared with controls, indicating that the electrophysiological alterations observed in the previous study probably are common markers of BD and not gender specific.

On page 5 the authors report “...a marginally significant difference in competence between black and white (-11.52, p = .06)”.

Subgroup analysis of esketamine regimens showed a significant reduction in the risk of oxygen desaturation (RR = 0.51, 95%CI = [0.35, 0.74], p = 0.0003); hypotension (RR = 0.38, 95%CI = [0.31, 0.46], p < 0.00001); and bradycardia (RR = 0.24, 95%CI = [0.12, 0.47], p < 0.0001) in the esketamine-propofol combination, and a marginally significant reduction ( oxygen desaturation : RR = 0.23, 95%CI = [0.05, 1.06], p = 0.06, and test for subgroup differences p = 0.32; hypotension : RR = 0.26, 95%CI = [0.07, 1.00], p = 0.05, and test for subgroup differences p = 0.59; bradycardia : RR = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02, 1.12], p = 0.06, and test for subgroup differences p = 0.64) in the esketamine-non-propofol combination in adults.

The percentage of patients experiencing a partial response or better was 55·2% and 67·1% of non‐ASCT and ASCT patients, respectively, a marginally significant difference (chi‐square P = 0·06; Figure S1 ).

Of these 114 genes, 27 had an identified IRP2 peak in our data, an overlap that is marginally significant ( P = 0.06, Fisher’s Exact Test).