“marginally significant”

The variables identified as significantly associated with outcome variables ( p < 0.05), that were marginally significant ( p < 0.20, t ) in the univariate analysis, or that are considered clinically relevant were selected for inclusion in the Cox regression model, which analyzed parameters associated with a loss in kidney graft function equal to at least 10% of the eGFR over the follow-up period of the 148 patients (median duration of follow-up: 13.3 months, 25–75th percentile: 12.1–15.1 months post-evaluation).

In a multivariate analysis, only lesion side (beta = −3.92, t = −2.28, p = .06) remained marginally significant but not time ( t = 1.41, p = .21).

We observed an increase of 20.7% [4.18%, 38.12%] in the peak activity level, and this was found to be marginally significant (sign-test, p = 0.21; t-test, p = 0.053).

Interestingly, albeit marginally significant, students in the control group showed a relative increment in the self-reported use of supplements over time (Use (time1) = 4.9%; Use (time2) = 8.7%; p = 0.22, McNemar Test).

Delong test showed that the AUC of SII have marginally significant over PLR and NLR in predicting PFS ( P = 0.238, P = 0.133, respectively).

A Two-Way repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant genotype effect, while there was marginally significant interaction in time around cage [genotype effect, F (1, 42) = 1.425, p = 0.2393; genotype × side interaction, F (1, 42) = 3.790, p = 0.0583].

The expression of miR-204-3p was significantly higher in serum exosomes from patients with mucinous cystic neoplasm than patients with IPMN ( p = 0.02, p = 0.007), while there was a marginally significant difference between mucinous cystic neoplasm and PC patients ( p = 0.24).

Silicon was marginally significant ( p = 0.24, p = 0.085, Fig. 2G ), as were calcium (both isotopes) and strontium ( p <0.1, data not shown).

Collectively, these three variants showed a marginally significant association with lower one of the IOP measurements ( P = 0.24 and 0.0012 for corneal compensated and Goldman-correlated IOP, respectively, Fig 1 ), with the protein-altering allele p.Arg140His also showing a marginally significant effect on its own ( P = 1.3x10 -3 and 1.9x10 -3 for corneal compensated and Goldman-correlated IOP, respectively, Table 1 ).

There was a marginally significant interaction between group (hens with and without fractures) and hybrid (white and brown) for the difference in laying rates (GLM, group: F = 1.39, 1 df, p = 0.24, hybrid: F = 0.28, 1 df, p = 0.60, group*hybrid: F = 4.08, 1 df, p = 0.048).

The odds ratio of the rs662 GA + AA (192RQ + QQ) genotype in the adenocarcinoma group (OR = 0.59, p = 0.053) was marginally significant and lower than for other histological types (squamous cell carcinoma OR = 0.76, p = 0.246; other non-small cell carcinoma OR = 0.90, p = 0.658) (data not shown).

Factors that were remained marginally significant in the baseline model (P < 0.25) were included in the multivariable model.

All marginally significant variables ( p < 0.25) in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis (stepwise logistic regression model) as independent variables.

When adjusting for health information self-efficacy, the P value for the association of frequency of portal use and PCC was no longer marginally significant (step 4, column 3 of Table 2 , P =.25).

Stepwise backward procedure was used for modeling by including variables with significant or marginally significant association in the bivariate logistic regression (p-value <0.25).

All variables univariately statistically significant and marginally significant (according to Hosmer and Lemeshaw variables with p<0.250) entered the multiple logistic regression models.

Marginally significant variables with P< 0.25 in univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis.

To identify independent factors associated with the presence of DICS-M, significant or marginally significant bivariate risk factors ( p < 0.25 using the above tests) were examined using univariate and multivariable backward stepwise logistic regression analysis.

All explanatory variables that were marginally significant on univariate analysis ( P < 0.25) were included in the full model.

The initial multivariate model included the following five factors that were found to be significant or marginally significant ( i.e ., p < 0.25) based on the initial screen: initial cytogenetic, previous disease/prior SCT, age at transplant, transplant type/source and conditioning intensity.

All variables univariately statistically significant and marginally significant (according to Hosmer and Lemeshow variables with p < 0.250) entered the multivariate logistic regression models (Enter method).

Homogeneously Expressed Proteins and Genes within the Tumors and Associated Pathways Proteins with a stable expression (i.e., had a low CV) within minimum four tumors ( Section 4 ) ( n = 49) showed marginally significant (one-sided Fisher’s exact test, adj. p < 0.25) enrichment for signaling processes such as PI3K–AKT–mTOR signaling, EPH–ephrin signaling, oncogenic MAPK signaling and signaling by Rho GTPases ( Figure 3 a, Table S5 ).

By contrast, after PA combined with M1 anodal tDCS, there was a small (~7% absolute, 14% relative), marginally significant improvement in neglect (Time (F(5,45)=1.365, p=0.255; η 2 p = 0.132; planned contrast (post – pre): t(9)=1.781, p=0.05, 1-tail; mean difference: 6.519, SEM: 3.66; Cohen's d: 0.286), which was still evident at the latest post-test interval, 21 days later.

When the frequencies of the four E chromosome arrangements with absolute frequencies ≥ 5 (Table 3 ) were compared between sexes, they did not differ significantly in either case even though frequency differences were marginally significant in the 2015 sample (χ 2 = 3.986; d.f. = 3; P = 0.263; χ 2 = 6.594; d.f. = 3; P = 0.086, in the 2014 and 2015 samples, respectively).

Despite the Q ST of TTW being marginally significant, what is striking is that TRW, which is a component of DBH and RW, is not ( p = 0.2680).