“marginally significant”

A marginally significant OS advantage favoring thalidomide maintenance was also detected, with median OS of 40 months versus 31 months ( p = 0.05) [ 40 ].

Reducing Visual Information Increased Pointing Error For both younger and older adults, pointing error increased as we removed visual information, going from full, to partial, to blindfolded conditions ( Figure 8 B), although this increase was marginally significant (i.e., there was a weak effect of visual information when considering both the fake and real hand conditions together, p = 0.05).

In Experiment 1, this correlation was not significant in Phase 1, r = –.36, was marginally significant in Phase 2, r = –.61 p = 0.05, and was significant in Phase 3, r = –.97 p < .003.

Statistical analysis showed an increment in the affected hemisphere for all patients during the online modality (statistically significant for P1 and P3: p < 0.00001; marginally significant for P2: p < 0.05 without correction).

This association was attenuated and marginally significant after adjustment for BMI (OR = 0.77, p=0.05) and no longer significant after adjustment for VAT (OR = 0.83, p=0.18).

The difference in EFS was marginally significant ( P = 0.05, 95% CI 0.15–0.99) but there was no difference in OS ( P = 0.2, 95% CI 0.12–1.41).

One-factorial ANOVAs for the factor session for the patients and controls separately with target locations either PRL or OppPRL indicated a marginally significant quadratic trend (blue line in Figure 7 , upper right panel) for the control group [ F (1,9) = 5.05; p = 0.05, not corrected for multiple comparisons; otherwise p = 0.1, Bonferroni corrected].

A marginally significant 3-way interaction ( F (1,50) = 4.0, p = 0.05) reflected presence of a Category Size × Age interaction for concrete ( F (1,50) = 8.66, p = 0.005) but not abstract items ( F (1,50) = 0.11, p = 0.74).

Deleting Demmer’s study [ 63 ] would reduce the effect size and obtain a marginally significant result (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.99–1.39, p > 0.05).

Comparisons of differing associations with risk of MI/CHD deaths and uncomplicated angina were significant for the inflammatory markers ( P < 0.05) and marginally significant for fibrin D-dimer ( P = 0.05).

The Egger test for funnel plot asymmetry was marginally significant (intercept 0.66, P =.05).

There were correlations between observed population seed germination rates in the chamber and observed population seedling emergence rates, correlations that were significant at the German garden ( r = 0.91, P < 0.001) and marginally significant in the Spanish garden ( r = 0.63, P = 0.050).

No differences were observed in overall circulating T helper (p=0.76), T-regs (p=0.12) and T suppressor (p=0.10) absolute counts, although a small and marginally significant reduction in T-regs/T-eff count and % were observed (p=0.05 and p=0.04, respectively) ( Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 6 ).

There was a marginally significant association between E-cadherin positivity and tumour differentiation into low and high grade ( p = 0.050).

There was a marginally significant difference between groups for CELF core language ( p = .050), with the CH group performing on average 14 points (i.e. ~ 1 SD) below controls on this measure (see also Supplementary Table 1 ).

The interaction between sex and age was marginally significant ( p = .050) and the three-way interaction between sex, age, and hand was significant ( p = .036).

Furthermore, a significant association between a European League Against Rheumatism–defined good response (18) at week 16 and change in the DAS28‐CRP over the first month of the study ( P = 0.02) was observed, whereas the association with change in MBDA score over this time period was marginally significant ( P = 0.05).

19 , 20 , 22 – 24 , 28 , 29 , 32 The pooled results indicated a marginally significant reduction in CSM risk among BB users (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81–1.00; Z = 1.95; P = 0.05).

However, we found that only one (of eight) species had significantly different larval and adult communities ( p = 0.04, R 2 = 0.53, 5% abundance cut-off, electronic supplementary material, table S1A), and two other species showed marginally significant differences ( p = 0.05, R 2 = 0.22 and p = 0.07, R 2 = 0.28; 5% abundance cut-off , electronic supplementary material, table S1A; results were similar when considering top 5 OTUs).

This region also shows a marginally significant response to the speech relative to silence contrast, voxelwise t(7) = 2.63, p < .05.

This IaPS effect was enlarged for individuals with ASD, as indicated by a marginally significant interaction term ( χ 2 (1) = 3.85, p = 0.050), which contradicts a putative in-group advantage.

Though significant differences were found among different age groups [ F (3, 68.9 = 08) = 4.72, p = 0.005], post-hoc analysis showed that there was only a marginally significant difference between 21–30 and 41–50 age groups ( t = 0.52, p = 0.05).

Among smaller, less precise studies toward the bottom of the plot, results were distributed across both significant (light gray area, p < 0.01) and marginally significant regions (dark gray area, 0.01 < p < 0.05), suggesting no evident directional bias.

P3 The main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (1, 50) = 4.03, p = 0.050, η p 2 = 0.075]; the HTA group had a larger P3 (2.88 ± 0.18 μV) compared with LTA group (2.39 ± 0.18 μV; Figure 4 ).

This effect reached statistical significance for CIV ( p = 0.001) and was marginally significant for CI ( p = 0.05).