“marginally significant”

Predicted “neutral” community classes included the third community class identified on alginate particles, which colonized these particles from time 0–12 h (empirical- p > 0.20); the first community class on chitosan (0–48 h, marginally significant; empirical- p = 6 × 10 −4 for the local model); and chitin was again an exception, with the first community class appearing neutral (defined along the whole trajectory, empirical- p > 0.8).

When comparing percent change in weight and fat mass with baseline variables to identify potential predictive biomarkers, one MS peak was marginally significant in the full analysis, α-aminoadipate (R 2 = 0.29, p = 0.0007).

24 hpi We identified no significantly enriched GO terms at 24 hpi that met our criteria ( q < 0.05); however, the term “oxidoreductase activity, acting on the CH–CH group of donors” was marginally significant ( p = 0.000739 and q = 0.06498).

Additionally, patients with high RUNX2 mRNA expression showed marginally significant event-free survival compared to those with low RUNX2 expression (raw p -value=7.56×10 -4 , Bonferroni p -value=0.055) (Figure 9B). miR-378, a microRNA, antagonizes RUNX2 mRNA and protein expression in SCC cell lines ( 46 ).

Notably, LIHC and TGCT alone each show marginally significant correlation between the G>T/C>A mismatch ratio and pass variant call ratio by reference strand (Pearson correlation = 0.295 and 0.212, P = 9.75e-4 and 4.46e-2, respectively).

The GWASdb provides information of genetic variants except for that annotated in the NHGRI GWAS Catalog and manually curated the SNPs that are marginally significant ( P < 1.0 × 10 −3 ), collected from supplementary materials of each original publication.

After controlling for season of draw, which is itself a marginally significant predictor of S-ECC status, increases in both 25(OH)D and calcium, as well as being breastfed as an infant ( p < 0.001), are significantly and independently associated with a lower likelihood of S-ECC ( p = 0.019 and p < 0.0001, respectively).

One‐sided likelihood‐ratio (LR) tests pursued to evaluate the statistical significance of the family variance for survival showed highly significant ( p < 0.001) results for the unbrowsed planting in both species, but marginally significant ( p = 0.046) and non‐significant ( p > 0.05) results in the browsed planting in E. ovata and E. pauciflora , respectively (Table S8 ).

The threshold for statistical significance was set at *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001, with *p < 0.05 considered marginally significant, **p < 0.01 deemed highly significant, and ***p < 0.001 regarded as extremely significant.

The interaction effects showed that all pairwise interactions between the factors were significant: the interaction between participant group and occlusion was significant F(2,118) = 3.910, p = 0.023,η 2 p = 0.062 ; the interaction between group and emotion was marginally significant F(2,118) = 2.923, p = 0.058,η 2 p = 0.047; and the interaction between occlusion and emotion was highly significant F(4,236) = 86.601, p < 0.001,η 2 p = 0.595.

For the EOS, a likelihood ratio test showed that the interaction between flow regime and drought status was marginally significant ( χ 2 (1) = 10.59, p = 0.001).

When PIR was examined as a categorical variable, individuals in the highest PIR tertile exhibited a 0.1 lower TyG index compared to those in the lowest tertile in the crude model(β = -0.10, 95% CI:-0.13~-0.06, P < 0.001); Following adjustments in both Model 1 and 2, the association between PIR and TyG remained marginally significant (β =-0.17, 95% CI:-0.21~-0.13, P < 0.001 and β = -0.11, 95% CI:-0.15~-0.07, P < 0.001, respectively).

In line with these results, mosquitoes fed with dsCHIK1 did not show any significant reduction in viral titers after infection with CHIKV, whereas mosquitoes injected with dsCHIK1 showed reduced viral titers in whole bodies two days post-infection and marginally significant reduced titers five days post-infection ( Figures S5 A–S5C, Kruskal-Wallis test on log-transformed viral titers: day 2 p < 0.001; day 5 p = 0.04; Kruskal-Wallis test on prevalence: day 2 p = 0.18; day 5 p = 0.07; see Table S2 for individual comparisons).

Finally, the model on the VAS-11 yielded both a significant main effect of Time – with scores being overall lower at T1 ( M = 1.22, SE = 0.44) when compared to T0 ( M = 3.61, SE = 0.44) net of Group ; however, when exploratively assessing a marginally significant Time * Group interaction term (Fig. 2 ), post-hoc comparisons revealed that such a decrease in scores was actually significant ( p < .001) only for hyperhidrosis patients (T0: M = 4.67, SE = 0.65; T1: M = 1.44, SE = 0.65) and not for dystonia ones ( p = .110).

Effects of biotic and abiotic conditions on specialization The protozoans showed a marginally significant effect when in their own temperature but with bacteria from different origins (specialization to biotic conditions; parameter = −0.88, P ‐value = 0.070), and a highly significant effect when in different temperatures and with their local bacteria (specialization to abiotic conditions; parameter = −2.05, P ‐value < 0.001, see Table S4), when compared to their densities in local abiotic and biotic conditions.

Marginally significant differences existed between T2 sound earlier and T2 sound later conditions ( t (68) = −3.38, p = 0.001, Cohen’s D = −0.81, 95% CI = [−0.276, −0.071]).

Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant interaction term and main effect of frequency ( P < 0.001) and a marginally significant overall effect of groups ( P = 0.05).

Statistically, differences between +snow and control plots were marginally significant in June 2006 ( F 1,6 = 3.773, P = 0.100) and highly significant in April 2008 ( F 1,6 = 40.60, P < 0.001).

When gender, age, monthly income, and education level were included as covariates, an ANCOVA revealed that the activating effect on behavioral intention remained marginally significant ( F (1, 186) = 34.22, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.155).

Additionally, we observed a marginally significant increase in the distribution of H4 (TGTCCG) and H10 (CGTCCG) in RA compared with that in the controls (H4 : p = 0.001, OR [95%CI] = 1.13 [0.77–1.26]; H10: p = 0.001, OR [95%CI] = 1.15 [1.02–1.56]) (Table 4 ).

A probability of p < 0.10 was considered as marginally significant, of p < 0.05 as significant, of p < 0.01 as highly significant and of p < 0.001 as extremely significant.

In the pRDA, the significance of RDA1 to RDA4 was confirmed through ANOVA ( p < 0.05), with RDA1 and RDA2 being highly significant ( p < 0.001), RDA3 significant ( p < 0.01) and RDA4 marginally significant ( p = 0.016) (Supplementary Data 8 ).

After controlling for potential confounders, significant or marginally significant and positive associations were observed between dietary intakes of total protein (standardized coefficient, β = 0.104 and 0.118, p < 0.001), animal protein ( β = 0.073 and 0.067, p < 0.05), and protein from white meat ( β = 0.074 and 0.067, p < 0.01) with changes in BMD at the femur neck and trochanter, respectively.

An initial multivariate statistical analysis (perMANOVA) on fungal community structure related to compartments and sampling dates revealed highly significant differences between compartments (F = 0.29521, p = 0.001) and marginally significant differences between sampling dates (F = 0.21081, p = 0.052).

Moreover, the fraction of tumoral dendritic cells component was significantly (highly significant in dendritic cells resting (HR = 0.4 (0.23–0.69), p < 0.001) and marginally significant in dendritic cells activated (HR = 0.56 (0.30–1.04), p value = 0.067)) and positively associated with poor prognosis, suggesting a deleterious effect on clinical outcome, whereas a totally opposite beneficial effect was observed in peritumor samples (dendritic cells resting [HR = 1.97 (1.27–3.06), p value = 0.003]; dendritic cells activated [HR = 2.92 (1.07–7.98), p value = 0.037]) ( Figure 5 B).