“marginally significant”

When samples in clusters 2, 3, and 4 were combined and compared to samples in cluster 1, the P-value was marginally significant (P-value = 0.116, Kaplan-Meier curve not shown) with the median OS of 733 vs. 3147 days.

Accreta pathology showed a marginally significant difference (74.3% of non-PAS cases vs. 83.3% of PAS cases; p = 0.116).

For White patients, the likelihood of receiving radioactive implants was marginally significant (β = 1.79, 95% CI: −0.46 to 4.04, P = 0.1188).

In the prosocial bonuses condition, sports teams showed a large, but statistically marginally significant increase in performance, t (5) = 1.87, p = .12, d = .76.

Although two of the interaction terms were marginally significant, a LRT suggested that including interaction terms did not improve the overall fit to the data (p = 0.12).

For daily step counts, the marginally significant pooled effect was driven primarily by 1 study [ 35 ]; removal of this study rendered the pooled effect nonsignificant ( P= .12) and substantially reduced heterogeneity.

The other two comparisons were in the expected direction but only the lure-3 trial was marginally significant ( p = .12), while the lure-5 trial showed no significant difference ( p = .86).

AST: AST was inversely associated with all caffeine metabolite indices among never smokers, where the p -value for trends were either statistically significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p ≤ 0.12).

The analyses yielded a significant main effect of lexicality [ F 1 (1, 10) = 8.10, MSE = 0.058, p < 0.02; F 2 (1, 30) = 5.48, MSE = 0.167, p < 0.03] and a marginally significant effect of reduplication [ F 1 (1, 10) = 2.97, MSE = 0.027, p < 0.12; F 2 (1, 30) = 3.11, MSE = 0.07, p < 0.09].

However, after adjustment for age, sex and BMI in Model I, and after adding disease history, drug use, education, smoking, physical activity, and socioeconomic status in Model II, the association between western dietary pattern and RA altered, becoming a marginally significant association: Model I (OR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.88–2.75, P = 0.12); Model II (OR = 1.84, 95% CI 0.91–3.72, P = 0.08).

Comparisons of baseline values between treated and untreated patients at 2 years indicate significantly worse condition for RMDQ (P<0.0001), Likert score (P = 0.014) and VAS leg pain score (P = 0.011), as higher baseline scores are observed for surgically treated patients compared to non-operative and marginally significant for VAS low back pain (P = 0.12).

Adjusting for age and sex, the interaction effects were found to have a marginally significant impact on non-verbal status ( p = 0.124, z = 1.54).

However, in these cases, the difference in the crossmodal task was not even marginally significant ( p = 0.13 in the n = 24 sample and p = 0.34 in the n = 18 sample, prior to Bonferroni correction), paralleling the mixed-effects analysis.

The observed trend in reduced aperiodic slope for the FXS group compared to age-matched controls was marginally significant for frontal ( p = 0.13) and central ( p = 0.07) regions.

lineosa this trend was statistically significant (F 1,57 = 13.603, P<0.001), leading to a marginally significant interaction term (F 1,114 = 2.37, P = 0.13; Species×Treatment interaction).

The decrease in diagnostic charges was marginally significant ( p = 0.13).

This effect is marginally significant (two-sided Mann–Whitney U test, N NR = 10, N dsC002 = 7, U = 51, r = 0.38, p = 0.13) ( Fig. 6F ).

Same-day patients also had marginally significant better mean final VA in the operated eye (20/40 versus 20/90, Z = 1.51, P = 0.130) despite poorer initial VA (20/98 versus 20/75) and higher age (3+ years), better final visual utility, and longer survival times for better VA.

Kaplan-Merier (KM) curves after PSM still showed a marginally significant difference between PIK3CA -HD mutant and PIK3CA -KD mutant MBCs ( Supplementary Figure 1 , Logrank p=0.13), suggesting PIK3CA -HD mutation itself to be an important risk factor for poor prognosis for MBCs in late-line therapy.

However, mean differences in scores between those who had no drug discovery background and those who had some drug discovery background were marginally significant for both TS knowledge ( p = .13) and CC knowledge ( p = .07).

While being a marginally significant elevation, the baseline flow volume of pre-capillary arterioles displayed approximately 50% increase in HO-2-null mice ( p = 0.13, Fig. 1 ).

This NEU-treated increase in F ECL+IgG was statistically significant (p < 0.08) for Octagam, 4G8a, and 4G8b and marginally significant for Gammagard (0.11 < p < 0.13).

Two-way ANOVA showed marginally significant site effect on CSE ( p -value = 0.13) and the post hoc test showed CSE is lower at HH and ZZ than QY ( Fig. 2c ).

Third-trimester blood volume and body weight are moderately correlated ( r Spearman = 0.49), but the correlation is marginally significant ( p = 0.13).

For all these measurements, QCIGISH was generally more sensitive [100.0% for < 2 cm (significant at p = 0.023 for WCC) and 100.0% for 2–3 cm (marginally significant at p = 0.134 for WCC)] than cytology and small biopsy pathology (66.7% for < 2 cm and 87.5% for 2–3 cm), although their specificities were relatively comparable (Fig. 5 C, D, Additional file 2 : Table S16 and S17).