“marginally significant”

The concave-up (down-up) shape of the average differentiation-time trajectory was marginally significant over a linear model (F-test, p = 0.04; see also Figures VIII–XVI in Document Z1; STAR Methods ).

The thinnest pachymetry and anterior chamber depth showed a marginally significant difference between the baseline and the first consecutive scan (9.3 μ and 0.03 mm, respectively, P = 0.04).

However, on average, oncologists gave lower scores to females more often than males ( P =0.04; marginally significant).

There was no significant difference in detecting IgM and IgG with Biolidics LFI and ELISA at D0 and D7 ( p = 1.00), except for marginally significant detection of IgM at D7 ( p = 0.04).

Follow-up RM-ANOVAs demonstrated (a) a significant interaction between emotion and face action for both posing [ F (5.18, 341.52) = 37.65, p < .001, η p 2 = .36] and spoken [ F (5.52, 364.20) = 13.45, p < .001, η p 2 = .17] conditions, (b) a significant Emotion × Condition interaction for all face areas (all p s < .05; though the interaction for nose lengthening was marginally significant, p = .04), and (c) a significant Face Action × Condition interaction for happy [ F (2.94, 193.76) = 214.92, p < .001, η p 2 = .77], angry [ F (2.98, 196.62) = 393.56, p < .001, η p 2 = .86], and sad [ F (2.88, 189.95) = 255.84, p < .001, η p 2 = .80].

Adjusted OR for an independent functional outcome for delays >8 minutes was marginally significant at 2.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 4.1, P = 0.04) based on mRS 0–2 but insignificant using mRS 0-1 at 1.2 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.4, P = 0.68).

Finally, the number of symptoms at diagnosis was a marginally significant predictor of the number of symptoms three months after recovery ( p = 0.04).

A marginally significant 3-way interaction between group (AI and human observer), expression, and gender [F(1,233) = 4.28, p = 0.04, η p 2 = 0.02], probably resulted from the larger decrease in performance for male smiling faces compared to female smiling faces in human, but not AI, estimations of age.

25 In our study, non-optimally controlled patients had a marginally significant ( P =0.04) 11% increased risk of hospitalization than those with optimal control.

At the second step of the analysis, adding the emotional burden of loneliness significantly increased predicted variance in depression symptoms by 4.7% and the effect of loneliness frequency scores was reduced but remained marginally significant (β = 0.141, p = .04).

Occupation reveals a marginally significant association ( p = 0.04), though the Likelihood Ratio ( p = 0.14) suggests weaker evidence.

The minimally-adjusted effects of long-term limiting illness and difficulty walking were likewise attenuated and became marginally significant ( p = 0.04) after adjusting for SEP.

23 ) compared to AKIN0, AKIN2 recipients showed a marginally significant increase (RR 1.43; 95 % CI 1.04–1.95; p = 0.04) ( Fig. 24 ) whilst AKIN3 recipients had a 2.2-fold increase (RR 95 % CI: 1.95–2.48; p < 0.001) in DGF incidence ( Fig. 25 ).

It is pertinent to mention here that FSI reduction was observed at the 3-month follow-up in both test groups, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.04).

Thus, female broods were more heavily provisioned than male or sex-unknown broods ( p = 0.06 marginally significant for female vs. male brood and p = 0.04 for female vs. sex-unknown brood; S5 Fig ; Table D in S5 File ).

1D ), we noted a positive but NS correlation between ADAMTS5 staining and proteinuria ( r = +0.36; p = 0.12) and a marginally significant negative correlation with eGFR ( r = −0.46; p = 0.04) indicating that ADAMTS5 might be increased as kidney function declines in IgAN, causing reduction in glomerular filtration (eGFR) and increase in urine protein concentration ( Fig. 1D ).

BD led to a marginally significant effect in females when all three sites were included ( p = 0.04 for a 1% change in median), which was not seen in the two‐site dataset ( p = 0.3, 0% change in median).

For these regions, the analysis indicated a significant main effect of Adaptation (V4: F 1,12 = 29.5, P < 0.001; VO: F 1,12 = 21.6, P < 0.001), and a significant Adaptation by Adaptor interaction (V4 marginally significant: F 1,12 = 5.1, P = 0.04; VO: F 1,12 = 7.4, P = 0.018).

Only the parafunctional habit networks were marginally significant in global strength (S = 1.21, p = 0.04) ( Supplementary Material S4 ).

The MRF-26 Total and SRI Summary significantly worsened from 44.9 ± 24.3 to 52.1 ± 26.2 ( p < 0.001) and from 55.0 ± 17.0 to 51.6 ± 18.0 ( p =0.010), respectively, while the SGRQ total showed a marginally significant deterioration from 62.5 ± 15.3 to 65.1 ± 16.9 ( p =0.040) ( Table 6 ).

As expected based on the selection criteria, the clinicopathological screening, including immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM), assessed as indicators of potential immune activation, did not reveal any values outside the reference intervals in either age group, despite a marginally significant ( p = 0.040) trend toward lower hematocrit (Ht) values and a significantly higher concentration of globulin fractions in older animals, resulting in a reduced albumin-to-globulin ratio, as previously reported in the literature [ 15 , 49 , 50 ].

Overall, IM was more common in children of younger than of older mothers; the same was observed in those with IM aged 11 and over, though differences were marginally significant (p = 0.04) and fairly small (Table 2 ).

In C1/2 recipients, reduction of NRM by ATG was less pronounced, yet marginally significant, if all ATG doses were included (RR, 0.61; p = 0.04; n = 363), and was slightly more pronounced if only the lower ATG dose levels were considered (RR, 0.56; p = 0.026; n = 320).

Only the input resistance showed a marginally significant difference for the PD29–31 groups (sham 111 ± 12 MΩ vs. verum 148 ± 10 MΩ, p = 0.04). iTBS Effects on sPSCs The analysis of spontaneous synaptic currents was performed on a different set of animals and Cy3-WFA-labeled cells to prevent changes in the physiological conditions of the small FSI due to long recording times.

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 ).