“marginally significant”

The interaction of uncertainty avoidance and brand nationality was marginally significant, F (1,382) = 2.208, p = 0.138 ( Figure 6 ).

However, the overall effect was non-significant and the heterogeneity was marginally significant (SMD, −0.18; 95% CI −0.42, 0.06; P =0.14; I 2 =47%, P =0.05 for heterogeneity).

The MD was 2.91 μm (-0.92, 6.74) at 24 months, indicating a marginally significant difference (P = 0.14).

sham) and trial type was rendered marginally significant (β = 0.009, t = 1.49, p = 0.14), suggesting that some of the variance associated with that interaction was shared with the physical sensation predictor.

We assessed the within-individual diversity ( i.e., alpha diversity), and found similar observed ASVs diversity between TB, and NTM-LD patients, and marginally significant greater expected richness of ASVs in TB-patients ( Fig 2A ) (Wilcoxon rank sum test, corrected p values: p = 0,14; p = 0.07, for Shannon, and Chao1, respectively).

In addition, Brca1 Mut MMs presented a marginally significant increase in the genomic length of chromosomal deletion ( p = 0.1407) (Figure S3B ).

The group-by-time interaction effect for the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was marginally significant ( β = 2.03, 95 % CI: −0.68 to 4.74, p = 0.142), with a small effect size at three months ( d = 0.46).

The largest tumor size was detected in the ER-positive only group (4.31 cm), although this difference was marginally significant statistically (p = 0.143).

The interaction between group and gender [ F (1, 40) = 2.862, p = 0.099, ηp 2 = 0.070] were marginally significant, but neither was the difference for gender [ F (1, 40) = 2.229, p = 0.147, ηp 2 = 0.076].

When the indirect pathway was included ( path ab : b = −0.10, SE = 0.053, z = 1.84, p = 0.066) the direct pathway from Cho concentration to reading ability ( path c : b = −0.16, SE = 0.084, z = 1.90, p = 0.06) was no longer marginally significant ( path c-prime : p = 0.147) (Figure 7B ).

Any gene which exhibited a marginally significant trend with survival (P < 0.15) was included in our final score ( 9 ).

After adjusting for confounding variables, the difference was found to be marginally significant (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.21; p=0.15).

The results of univariate COX analysis are shown in Table 2 , and the Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the significant and marginally significant ( p < 0.15) prognostic factors are presented in Fig. 4 .

Mental rotation z ‐scores of women who received MMN did not differ from those who received IFA (unadjusted B = 0.05; 95% CI [−0.16, 0.27]; p = .83; adjusted B = 0.01; 95% CI [−0.17, 0.20]; p = .98) or LNS, though this difference was marginally significant in the adjusted analysis (unadjusted B = 0.17; 95% CI [−0.05, 0.39]; p = .15; adjusted B = 0.19; 95% CI [0.00, 0.38]; p = .054).

Sex of the individual was found to only be marginally significant ( p = 0.15, 0.05, 0.02 for microfilaraemia, antigenaemia and mf count, respectively), with males having an increased risk of microfilaraemia, antigenaemia and mf count.

At each step, models were retained if the newly added gene was at least marginally significant (p-value <0.15) and all other genes were significant (p-value <0.05).

If associations between individual explanatory variables and an outcome of interest were statistically significant or marginally significant (p < 0.15), then these variables were considered in the manual execution of forward stepwise regression.

All the variables with at least a marginally significant association with the total DAP level ( p < 0.15) were considered for the multivariable model.

The pooled mean difference of the anterior neck soft tissue at the vocal cords based on the meta-analysis results was 0.27 cm higher in the difficult than the easy group and this difference was marginally significant ( p = 0.150) (Fig. 3 ).

However, survivorship curves suggested lower early survival in the night‐warming only (C/W) group (Figure 3a , Table 1 ), and an a posteriori comparison between the C/W group and all other treatments suggested that this contrast was marginally significant (χ 2 (1) = 2.0, p = 0.15).

For significant or marginally significant interactions (p<0.15), we examined models and plotted the predicted probability of perceived discrimination.

Predictors that were at least marginally significant (p < 0.15) were entered into a final multivariable model.

An F test was used to test the significance of the proportion of variance in CAN point (R 2 ) that was explained in the model, the regression model which included the subset of explanatory variables that were at least marginally significant (p < 0.15).

All the factors showing a marginally significant association with OS ( p < 0.15) in the univariate analysis were entered into a stepwise Cox regression analysis, with significant variables selected by the stepwise method.

Thus, among the 12 SNPs genotyped or imputed in this study from 26 GC susceptibility markers in previous GWASs [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ], half with a marginally significant relationship with GC ( p -value < 0.15) were considered for the PRS.