“marginally significant”

71 It was also curious that while the statistical significance of some differences of only 1% or 2% (and which favored the uncircumcised penis) were high, substantial differences (favoring the circumcised penis) were either not significant (namely, in uncircumcised men, 31% higher “ unusual sensations intensity ” of the lateral penile shaft) or marginally significant (namely, again in the uncircumcised men, 37% higher “ unusual sensations intensity ” of the dorsal shaft,” P = .039).

In addition, emotional well-being is marginally significant—Partial R-Sq. = 0.000, P = 0.0397 ( Table 3 ).

This is reflected in a marginally significant Wilcoxon test (p = 0.0399), suggesting that MCM7 may have slightly lower resolution at the subclade level compared to ITS or RPB2 .

Analyses were re-performed with multivariate outliers, and the results did not change except for the path between violence at time 2 predicting perfectionistic strivings at time 3 that became marginally significant (β = 1.23, p = 0.04) For the second model estimating the cross-lagged effect of perfectionistic concerns on violence towards the offspring, it showed adequate fit (χ 2 (4) = 80.5, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.87; TLI = 0.53; RMSEA = 0.29, 95% CI = [0.24, 0.34], SRMR = 0.06).

There were significant or marginally significant improvements from Follow-ups #2 to #3 after the booster training in the prevalence of the 2 items (54% to 88% for ability to define obesity, P = .040; and 58% to 88% for ability to screen patients, P = .079).

The main effect of space typology was marginally significant (Wilks’ Λ = 0.80, F(2,29) = 3.62, p = 0.04), with Nodal spaces (6939.34 ms) showing significantly longer fixation durations than Path spaces (6601.19 ms, Δ = 338.15 ms, p = 0.01), which contrasts with the non-significant difference in PRS scores between Nodal and Path spaces, suggesting that although Nodal spaces have longer fixation durations, their attention restoration efficiency is lower (PRS score = 68.03).

Moreover, the marginally significant difference in PVD at baseline ( P = 0.04) represents a limitation of the present study.

While performance expectancy was marginally significant in Model 2 (OR = 1.202, P = 0.04), it did not retain significance in Model 3.

TMEM18 also showed marginally significant dyadicity ( P -value = 0.04).

After sequential adjustment for demographic characteristics (sex, marital status, and race), smoking status, hearing impairment, and visual impairment (Models 2‐5), the HR for digital isolation was attenuated but remained marginally significant (eg, Model 5: HR 1.23; P =.04).

The only other pairwise combination between alleles at different loci showing significant LD was between sod1 D and infPhox S, which was marginally significant after Bonferroni correction (p = 0.04; S4 Table ); because these two rare (≤ 2% frequency) alleles co-occur in only three individuals, and because the more common alleles at these loci do not show LD, we dismissed this result as unlikely to be biologically meaningful.

With regards to ICSI, a marginally significant difference was seen in LBR in men with low SDF compared to those with high SDF (5 studies, 445 couples; RR 1.11, 95% CI, 1.00–1.23, P=0.04) ( 44 ).

graecus ( P = 0.001) and one gene, TLR07 , showed a marginally significant excess of polymorphism ( P = 0.04) in L. v. graecus ( table 3 ).

Conversely, in MDA-MB-231 cells the introduction of HYP (or HYP+4-OHT) to the cells seems to have a slight, marginally significant increase in the oxygen consumption ( p ~ 0.04), which however does not seem to be affected by the application of light.

In the Iranian population, a marginally significant association was detected only under recessive genetic model (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.05–7.40, P = 0.04).

This association remains marginally significant ( P =0.04) after the application of a Bonferroni correction.

However, total haemosporidian prevalence was marginally significant, increasing with host abundance (Wald's χ2 = 4.17, df = 1, p < .04; Table 2 ; Figure 3 ).

4 ; and Table 2 –30-day unplanned readmission; Table 3 –30-day mortality; and Additional file 2 : Table S2–30-day unplanned readmission/mortality) showed the proportion of overall variation in outcomes explained by variation between hospitals (Model 1) was not statistically significant for unplanned readmission (ICC = .0205, p = 0.12) or mortality (ICC = 0.0000), while the between-hospital variation in the combined readmission/mortality outcome was marginally significant in the null model, explaining 3.0% of the total variance in outcomes ( p = 0.04).

Increasing the curing time from 20 to 40 seconds had a marginally significant effect ( p ≤ 0.040) on the DC of both bulk fill and universal studied RBC samples.

In spatio-temporal analysis, only a single large cluster (radius > 9 km) was found to be marginally significant (p = 0.04) during October 2011 (data not shown).

In terms of performance, there was a marginally significant decrease in overall performance (from 63% to 51%; z = 2.01; p = .04).

While the comparison between 2022 and 2023 was marginally significant ( p = 0.04).

One locus, TpMSAT05, exhibited a marginally significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) ( χ 2 = 16.44, DF = 8, P = 0.04), though this deviation was not significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (corrected α = 0.013).

S5), but only a marginally significant difference in GC content, with Genbank/RefSeq assemblies having slightly higher GC content (two-sided paired samples Wilcoxon test, p = 0.04, Additional file 1 : Fig.

A trend for increased percentage of fibrosis was seen in the sirolimus group (8.48±3.17 to 10.10±3.0%; P =0.07) as compared with marginally significant progression in the CNI group (8.76±3.87 to 10.56±4.34%; P =0.04).