“marginally significant”

The correlation analysis between different IHC staining intensity of STT3A and clinicopathological factors showed that only the lymph node status and metastasis were marginally significant (chi-square test, P=0.0893, P=0.0791; see Table S1 ).

However, adjusted for CiteScore, the correlation between social impact and public interest was moderately strong and marginally significant (r=0.69, p=0.0894).

low learners as described earlier), we noted a marginally significant correlation between ΔCSE rTMS and ΔGeneralization for high‐learners of the cM1 group ( R 2 = 0.406, p = 0.0894) with no significant correlation for low learners ( R 2 = 0.003, p = 0.9049) (see Figure 6C ).

It is important to note that the leaf temperature between treated and control plants was marginally significant at (α = 0.10, F = 2.91, df = 1, 174, p = 0.0897), and the Si-treated plants had a consistently lower leaf temperature for the majority of the five weeks we collected data; however, that difference ranged from 0.5–1 °C depending on variety ( Figure 9 ).

For these 28 scenarios, the effect of conflict was not significant at word 0 (preposition; p > 0.6), marginally significant at word 1 (determiner; p = 0.09) and significant at word 2 (noun; t = −5.2, p < 0.001).

No significant differences were found in the level of knowledge from the independent variables analyzed, although the variables specific training/specialization in sexuality and modality of care presented marginally significant results ( p = 0.09 and 0.099, respectively).

An unfavourable OS was associated with recurrence situated in pleura or peritoneum ( P = 0.02) ( Figure 4 ), while prior weight loss was marginally significant ( P = 0.09).

46 , 47 , 51 , 56 Effect on glycemic-control biomarkers Glucose and insulin The pooled estimate on the effects of plant-based n-3 fatty acids on blood glucose and insulin from 4 studies showed a marginally significant ( P = 0.09) pooled effect for glucose (MD: −1.80 mg/dL; 95% CI: −3.85, 0.25; I 2 = 75.92%) and was nonsignificant for insulin (MD: −0.50 μU/mL; 95% CI: −1.59, 0.59; I 2 = 16.12%) for the included studies, which accounted for 2 adult flaxseed ALA interventions 46 , 51 (58 patients) and 2 child/adolescent (43 patients) DHA trials 53 , 56 ( Table 5 , 46 , 47 , 51–56 Figure 5A , 46 , 51 , 53 , 56 and Figure 5B 46 , 47 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 ).

The marginally significant group effect (F(2, 27) = 2.6, p = 0.09) was due to a reduced pre-stimulus alpha activity in the cc compared to the mc group (t(22) = 2.7, p < 0.01; one-tailed) and the dc group (t(16) = 1.9, p < 0.04; one-tailed; Fig. 2d ).

The interaction between Feedback Condition and Feedback Valence was marginally significant (F(1,22) = 3.18, p = .09, η p 2 = .13).

GPP chl a was reduced by similar amounts on d 4 in Avicennia and Ecklonia (marginally significant at p = 0.09) plots, but interestingly after 17 d Avicennia plots had higher GPP chl a (by 23%) compared to control plots.

RT was marginally significant longer to target compared to familiar-probe pictures, F (1, 93) = 2.89, p = .09, η p 2 = 0.03.

But the relative fitness of Δ csgD cells was marginally significant (one sample t -test, P = 0.09, n ≥ 5) at stationary phase of LS condition for Δ csgD cells in stationary phase (Figure 1B ).

The interaction between time and response person revealed 3 items with marginally significant interactions (diagnostic studies, p = 0.09; teaching, p = 0.06; and CPOE, p = 0.08).

This difference was marginally significant in multivariate analysis that controlled for transfusion burden and splenectomy under a dominant model ( p = 0.09) ( Table 2 , Figure 1 a) but not under the other genetic models.

The interaction between time and group was marginally significant, F (2, 71) = 2.50, p = 0.090, η p 2 = 0.02, as did the main effect of group , F (2, 71) = 2.45, p = 0.094, η p 2 = 0.04.

The test for subgroup differences in functional independence suggested a marginally significant variation in effects ( χ 1 2 =2.93; P =.09), indicating that intervention duration may be a potential contributor to the overall heterogeneity of the meta-analysis, albeit not reaching formal statistical significance, while the point estimate still favored shorter intervention duration (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.12-1.23; I 2=0%; P= .72; Figure 8 ).

Also, WE at T2 was positively associated with both SS at T1 ( r = 0.29, p < 0.01) and resilience at T1 ( r = 0.38, p < 0.001), with SS at T1 also being positively associated with log DHEA(S) at T2, although this association was marginally significant ( r = 0.16, p = 0.09).

However, these tasks did not yield significant activations in the targeted regions (The marginally significant channel in the phonological task: CH23, t = 1.72, p = 0.09; For the other phonological tasks, ts < 1.45, ps > 0.09; Semantic task: ts < 1.35, ps > 0.05), likely due to the lower sensitivity of fNIRS in detecting brain activity compared to fMRI.

These revealed marginally significant differences between conditions: descriptively, across pairs, adults in the Joint condition made more correct fixations ( mean difference = .05, SEM = .03, p = .09) and fewer fixations to Incorrect locations ( mean difference = -.01, SEM = .01, p = .09) than adults in the Parallel condition.

The difference between the nasal and control conditions was marginally significant ( p = 0.09).

The correlation between this threat effect and the interaction term from the ANOVA on fixations was marginally significant, r = 0.331, p = 0.09.

No other significant differences were observed in macronutrient or food group intake between the 2 groups, except for a marginally significant ( P = 0.09) higher fiber intake in nonresponders ( Table 2 ).

Multigroup comparisons revealed significant racial/ethnic differences in the magnitude of association between history of low vaccination and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine ( p -value = 0.01) and marginally significant differences in the magnitude of association between overall county-level vaccination barriers and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine ( p -value = 0.09) ( Supplementary Table S3 ).

Even with the happy faces, a marginally significant level ( p = 0.09) was observed.