“marginally significant”

The number of retrieved lymph nodes and tumor differentiation were marginally significant between the two groups (P=0.071 and 0.053, respectively).

The differences in HCZ growth velocity among the three groups from baseline to 3 months were marginally significant ( p = 0.071).

When analyses were repeated using Spearman rho correlation, four associations remained significant (see Table 2 ), including the associations between Proximity and OXTR binding in the total presubiculum (ρ = − 0.83, p = 0.01), Contact and OXTR binding in the total presubiculum (ρ = − 0.83, p = 0.01), Proximity and OXTR binding in PSB3 (ρ = − 0.88, p = 0.004), and Contact and OXTR binding density in PSB3 (ρ = − 0.88, p = 0.004); the associations between OXTR binding in PSB1 and Proximity and Contact were marginally significant ( p = 0.071; see Table 2 ).

For 6-minute trial blocks, we found a marginally significant correlation between RESS_rivalry and self-report, r (11) = 0.52, P = .071, B \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{doc

Restrained eating in T1 also displayed a statistically significant effect on binge eating (β = 0.165, p = 0.004) in T2 and a marginally significant effect on BMI (β = − 0.080, p = 0.071) in T2.

OPI improved significantly by 57% to about 1.5 OPI units with SIME (p = 0.0026) and by 4% with HA; treatment difference in changes from baseline was statistically significant for ITT population (p = 0.047) and marginally significant for PP population (p = 0.071) in favour of SIME (Fig.

A marginally significant three-way interaction effect of Time, Measurement Site and Condition F (2, 21) = 3.01, p = 0.071, η p 2 = 0.22 was found.

Abnormal lymph node on ultrasound was marginally significant ( p = 0.071).

However, once CCL3L is included in the model, population-of-origin makes only a marginally significant improvement (LRT m 1 v. m 3 = 3.25; p = 0.071; Table 1 ).

The interaction between Age and Time was marginally significant, F (1, 404) = 3.28, p = .071, ηρ2 =0.01.

7 Using subjects’ self-placed ideology on the 11-point scale from left (0) to right (1) as predictor of their voice pitch preferences, we find a marginally significant effect for choices of male candidate voices, such that lower pitched voices are increasingly preferred the more rightwing the subject ( b = 0.076, p = .071).

Using the same confounders as in Table 4 , and adjusted for log2 (dietary intake), only one marginally significant dietary pattern (factor) was discovered ( p = 0.071) based on nutrient densities.

Despite most of the samples with high expression of ID4 were from patients older than 50 (73.5%), this association was marginally significant ( p = 0.071).

Furthermore, within the trauma-exposed group, higher prefrontal GABA levels retained a marginally significant association with reduced CBF levels after excluding four potential outliers (β = −0.240, P = 0.071).

Adding the CBCL peer relations scale to the CBCL Total problem scale regression model led to a decrease in β from 1.75 to 0.97, remaining marginally significant ( β = 0.97, p = 0.071, CI − 0.08 to 2.01, R 2 = 0.30), indicating that CBCL total problem T scores are influenced by the peer relations scale, but remain higher in older presenters compared to younger presenters.

Although the number of saccades was numerically smaller for spaced sentences (mean: 17.74 saccades for spaced, and 18.11 for unspaced), regression analysis revealed only a marginally significant difference (β = −0.447, SE = 0.247, p = 0.071).

The results of logistic mixed-effects regression modeling indicated that there was a significant effect of age, β = 1.40, SE = 0.19, z = 7.44, p < .05, a significant effect of RC type, β = − 0.30, SE = 0.11, z = − 2.70, p < .05, and a marginally significant interaction between animacy and RC type, β = 0.28, SE = 0.15, z = 1.80, p = .071.

The association between headache and seizure freedom was marginally significant ( x 2 = 3.25, p = 0.071).

Although the bivariate correlation between “need for more” and log‐transformed calories consumed was marginally significant ( r = .19, p = .071), “need for more” and “making trade‐offs” did not relate to log‐transformed calorie consumption in the full regression model, β = 0.18, t (90) = 1.47, p = .14, and β = −0.02, t (90) = −0.51, p = .61, respectively.

The main effect of GROUP was marginally significant, F (2, 84) = 2.73, p = 0.071, an effect that was carried by ASD having significantly weaker responses than TD, t (84) = –2.13, p = 0.04, and marginally significantly weaker responses than ADHD, t (84) = 1.70, p = 0.09.

Instead, we observed a marginally significant main effect of expectation [F(1,10) = 4.095, p = 0.071]; self-reported intrinsic motivation scores were higher under high-expectation conditions.

The SOI did not have a significant trend over the full monitoring period that might lead to a trend in SST, but there has been a marginally significant (p = 0.071) trend in the SOI over the satellite era (Fig.

Each additional year of age was associated with 1.05 times increased odds of having uncontrolled hypertension, although this result was marginally significant ( p value = 0.071, 95% CI: [1.00, 1.11]).

There was also statistical significance found for the other three biomarkers: NEU (OR = 1.032, 95% CI: 1.005-1.059, P = 0.023), NLR (OR = 1.035, 95% CI: 0.998-1.074, P = 0.071, marginally significant), and SII (OR = 1.0001, 95% CI: 1.0000-1.0003, P = 0.041).

The two main effects were also non-significant for the motor RDM ( p > 0.5 for both) but their interaction was marginally significant ( p = 0.071).