“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant relationship between increased PD-L1 expression and improved overall survival in patients at histological grade 2 ( P = 0.073) ( Supplementary Figure 1 ).

Regarding financial circumstances, there was a marginally significant difference between groups in PIFS scores ( t 96.05 =1.81; P =.073), with the intervention group reporting slightly higher financial stress (mean 49.60, SD 14.67) than the control group (mean 44.10, SD 16.24), though this difference did not reach statistical significance at the conventional alpha level.

On two validation sets that had patient outcome data, patients with IDH-wildtype gliomas that were predicted to be IDH-mutant astrocytomas demonstrated significant ( p = 0.016, Jonsson et al., log-rank) or marginally significant ( p = 0.073, TCGA validation, log-rank) improvement in survival compared to correctly predicted IDH-wildtype gliomas (Fig. 5 E, F).

In addition, our results also revealed a marginally significant effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on patients’ OS (χ 2 = 3.221, P = 0.073) ( Table 2 ).

Similarly, the corresponding ANOVA of the N170 peak amplitude revealed a significant main effect of infant facial expression [ F (2,124) = 5.55, p = 0.008, η 2 = 0.082], with statistically significant larger amplitudes for joy infant faces (-8.23 ± 0.88 μV) than for crying ones (-7.79 ± 0.85 μV) ( p < 0.001) and marginally significant larger amplitudes than for neutral ones (-7.90 ± 0.86 μV) ( p = 0.073).

A marginally significant negative relationship was found between water velocity and MNTD (Slope −0.337, p value = .073), and no significant relationship was detected between the MPD and any habitat variable. 5.

Correlation with live coral cover was marginally significant (r = -0.476, p = 0.073, n = 15).

Following up a marginally significant interaction Cognitive Demand * ADHD on target-N2 amplitude ( F 1,68 = 3.323; p = .073; η 2 p = .047) showed that children with ADHD (ADHD-only and ADHD+autism) had reduced target- N2 during high-demand trials ( M = −2.987 μV; SE = 0.344 μV), compared to children without ADHD (NT and autism-only: M = −4.043 μV; SE = 0.387 μV; p = .048).

While there was no difference between the noise-normalized pattern correlation and 1 for the near voxels ( t (9) = 1.942, p = 0.958, d = 0.614; corrected), the difference was marginally significant for the far voxels ( t (9) = 2.029, p = 0.073, d = 0.642; corrected), with a significant difference between the near and far voxels ( t (9) = 2.52, p = 0.033, d = 1.06).

In contrast, negative correlations were more frequent in A:S connections, demonstrating significant bias relative to S:S connections ( Z = 2.27, P = 0.035), and marginally significant bias relative A:A connections ( Z = 1.87, P = 0.073); comparison of A:A and S:S connections revealed no difference ( Z = 0.95, P = 0.34).

outgroup evaluation) ANOVA with repeated measure on the latter factor showed only a marginally significant main effect of group, F (1, 96) = 3.30, p = .073, partial η 2 = .03, as shown in Fig. 3 , which suggests that participants evaluated the ingroup ( M = 5.85, SD = 1.23) more positively than the outgroup ( M = 5.70, SD = 1.19).

The interaction between Model Type and Pain Level was marginally significant [ F (2, 70) = 3.0, p = 0.073].

According to the methodological heterogeneity between studies and their different charactristics, we performed the analysis based on random-effect model that indicated a marginally significant association between DAL and risk of fracture (N event = 5275, Pooled OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.99–1.21, P = 0.073) (I 2 = 12.9%; P = 0.321).

After correction for multiple comparisons, “Production Occupations” remained significant in unadjusted models (p = 0.024) and was marginally significant in adjusted models ( p = 0.073).

For generative verbal fluency test, a decline was noted in both the lowest quartile (−4.17 ± 1.40 SD) and the highest quartile (−1.17 ± 2.13 SD) of A β 1–42 , and these differences were marginally significant (F = 2.63, P = .073).

Further investigations examined whether there was an interaction of pairing condition and loneliness group on fear learning, with a 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA (pairing condition x loneliness group) revealing a significant effect of pairing condition (F (1,30) = 5.752, p = 023, η ρ 2 = 0.161, Cohen's f = 0.44), such that there was higher conditional fear responding in the safety signal condition, and a marginally significant interaction (F (1,30) = 3.445, p = .073, η ρ 2 = 0.103, Cohen's f = 0.34).

A marginally significant effect of load [ F (2,28) = 3.681, p = 0.073] suggested that the single flanker condition elicited the largest amplitude response (7.01 μV), followed by the dual task conditions with set size 4 (5.984 μV) and set size 7 (5.4 μV).

The bursting pressure of bevacizumab wass less than in the sham group and it could be assumed marginally significant ( P = 0.073).

The multivariate interaction effect of Culture × Threat was marginally significant, F (8, 756) = 1.80, p = .073, ηp 2 = .02.

In the ADHD group, we observed a significant difference in the effect of age on ACC between BM-Local and BM-General (standardised β 5 =0.462, p<0.001) and marginally significant differences in the effect of age on ACC between BM-Local and BM-Global (standardised β 4 =0.228, p=0.073).

A significant main effect of age group (F(1,12) = 7.18; p < 0.05) and a marginally significant interaction between Aβ group and age (F(1,12) = 3.84; p = 0.073) was found with aged dogs performing more poorly than young.

The four factor ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction effect of Culture×Face×Threat (F(1,19) = 3.616, p = 0.073), as the interaction of Face×Threat was more salient in Chinese subjects (F(1,19) = 58.469, p<0.001) than in American subjects (F(1,19) = 1.911, p = 0.182).

Additionally, after controlling for the effects of perceived burdensomeness, suicide attempts at T1 and T2 positively predicted cyber-victimization at T2 and T3, respectively, but this cross-lagged effect from T1 to T2 was marginally significant ( p = .073).

However, the late EBQI-PACT practices showed a marginally significant difference in EE by wave 3 of 6.23 points lower than comparison practices ( p = .073).

The heterogeneity of the effects from this analysis based on N = 10 comparisons increased (I2 = 43%, moderate inconsistency [ 55 ]; Tau2 statistics for heterogeneity being marginally significant, p = .073).