“marginally significant”

The difference in lesion detection rates between the standard group and the RPP group with 50-keV imaging was marginally significant for the portal venous phase (FOM: 0.574 vs. 0.735, P = 0.033).

Over the past 12 months, 9.2% (147/1603) had experienced sexual violence, with a marginally significant difference between men and women (6.4% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.033).

The causal effect on CRP was −0.022 ( P = .038), while the effect on IL-10 was positive but marginally significant at 0.086 ( P = .033).

However, the strong correlations of both, AcG and UnG with ISI were abolished after adjustment for BMI, whereas the association of the AcG/UnG ratio with ISI was marginally significant ( p = 0.033).

However, among the subscales we only found marginally significant difference on the Glucose management subscale (median (interquartile range): 7.33 (6.00–8.79) vs 7.30 (5.83–8.48), effect size: 0,098, p = 0.033).

The TRIPLET × PART × AGE GROUP was marginally significant [ F (4, 278) = 2.377, η 2 p = 0.033, p = 0.052].

The meta-analysis of eligible studies, including 1154 PD patients and 994 controls, showed a non-significant increase in serum/plasma manganese in PD patients, which was marginally significant in the common effects model ( p = 0.0333) ( Figure 7 b). 3.4.4.

Their expression differences between HPV-P and HPV-negative women were significant or marginally significant, respectively ( p = 0.034 for RFC4 and p = 0.08 for TOP2A, Fig. 4 D).

There was a marginally significant increase (p = 0.034) in CD8 T effector memory cells re-expressing CD45RA (T EMRA ) in PBMC of LTBI vs RSTR participants.

A marginally significant increase in epinephrine (+3.21 μg/gCr, P = 0.034 ) and a statistically significant increase in glutamate (+20.70 μMol/gCr, P = 0.005 ) post‐GCE dose are consistent with evidence that certain doses of caffeine can augment the release of excitatory neurotransmitters. 23 A similar increase in epinephrine was observed postcontrol dose but not post‐GLE dose.

Specifically, after Holm–Bonferroni correction, there was only a marginally significant positive correlation between trial 2 and trial 3 JOL gamma scores, r (36) = 0.34, p = 0.034, and a significant positive correlation between trial 2 and trial 3 RCJ gamma scores, r (36) = 0.47, p = 0.003 (others: p s from −0.003 to 0.23, p s > 0.17).

In addition, the PIT of transect 1 had a marginally significant reduction pattern (estimate ± SE = −0.050 ± 0.023, t = −2.151, p = .034; Table 3 and Figure 4g ). 3.4 Sexual dimorphism in brain size For males, the average relative proportions of TEL and PIT were 0.503 and 0.026, while for females, they were 0.497 and 0.03.

Full‐spectrum speech An LME model with RAU‐transformed scores as the independent variable; age at test, group (cNH or cCI), and speaker (male or female) as fixed effects; and subject‐based random intercepts showed significant effects of age ( p = .0003), group ( p < .0001), and speaker ( p = .0003), and a marginally significant interaction between age and group ( p = .0340) on mean emotion recognition cores (Figure 3 ).

Matched samples comparisons There were marginally significant differences in RSFC parameters (Table 2 ) for within-network RSFC of the fronto-parietal network (FPN, p = 0.034) and the ratio of within- to inter-network RSFC of the visual network ( p = 0.044; Fig. 2 ) between PRESENT shift workers and MATCHED controls.

Race showed marginally significant differences for Tinfl ( p = 0.034, two-sided Student’s t -test) and Angio ( p = 0.069) expression with medium effect size [ 41 , 42 ] (Cohen’s d = 0.50 for both signatures).

In addition, there is a modestly significant interaction between genotype and sex ( P = 0.034), and a marginally significant interaction between stage and genotype ( P = 0.07).

At the same time, when we carried out our comparisons across species, we found only a marginally significant correlation between the minimal AAI of a species and its maximal gene fluidity ( P = 0.034, according to the Spearman Rank correlation test; table 1 ).

A contingency chi2 revealed a marginally significant enrichment (12.8% expected versus 33% observed, p = 0.034).

Age was considered as control variable and entered as covariate because significant and marginally significant correlations were observed with mean N2 ( r = .19, p = .034) and P3 ( r = −.15, p = .09) amplitudes.

This showed that, for the first saccade, there was no significant difference between the time points (Wald Chi 2 (2) = 2.089; p = 0.352), but a marginally significant effect of the condition (Wald Chi 2 (1) = 3.327, p = 0.034 one-sided) with better performance in FB1 than in FB2 (see Fig. 4 ).

There was a marginally significant 8.1% reduction in CVD risk with a 10% increase in F 2 IP ( P =0.034) without adjustment for HbA1c that became nonsignificant after such adjustment ( P =0.057).

When predicting Action Judgment Error, there was a marginally significant effect of experimental condition (η 2 p = .034, 90% CI [0.00, 0.07], F (3, 195) = 2.27, p = .082).

Interestingly, plant species richness remained significant or marginally significant even when fitted after plant functional groups richness in affecting microbial biomass in 2006 ( F 1,70 = 4.67; P = 0.034), Collembola density in 2004 ( F 1,66 = 8.53; P = 0.005), Oribatida density in 2008 ( F 1,66 = 4.95; P = 0.030), macrofauna herbivore density in 2008 ( F 1,71 = 3.34; P = 0.072), macrofauna herbivore diversity in 2004 ( F 1,71 = 3.90; P = 0.051) and 2008 ( F 1,71 = 6.87; P = 0.011), and macrofauna decomposer diversity in 2008 ( F 1,71 = 7.03; P = 0.010).

As such we saw a treatment effect of 3.76 marginally significant ( p = 0.0341), which is considerably smaller than the 16-point difference we initially thought to be clinically meaningful.

Sulcatol had a marginally significant attractive effect on H. hampei females (χ 2 1 = 4.4545 P = 0.0348; N = 44) ( Fig. 4 ).