“only marginally significant”

However, after adding the number of comorbidities, baseline medications, previous hospitalizations and informed consent by proxy (factors that differed significantly between groups at baseline), sex was only marginally significant ( p = 0.05) while a significant association between the number of baseline medications and both underuse and overuse was found: underuse decreased with an increasing number of medications (for each additional medication OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.90–0.95), while overuse increased (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04–1.12).

For instance, only floral abundance appears to influence complementary specialization (H 2 ’), but this relationship is only marginally significant (0.10 > p > 0.05; Fig. 4 A).

When tested by ANOVAs, VLS was only marginally significant (F = 3.6 P = 0.05), and none of the remaining QTs had significant differences among sites (achromatic F = 2.9 P > 0.05, green F = 0.7 P > 0.05, blue F = 2.8 P >0.05, dorsals F = 0.7 P> 0.05) ( S2 Table ).

The concentration of DBEP was found to be only marginally significant correlated with urinate habit (OR 4.042; 95% CI 1.002–16.295, p = 0.050) (Table 5 B).

After adjusting for covariants, the AG genotype for rs40593 (OR=0.557, 95% CI=0.331-0.938; p =0.028), the CT genotype for rs3755751 (OR=0.579, 95% CI=0.347-0.966; p =0.036), and the G-allele carriers (AG plus GG) for rs40593 (OR=0.535, 95% CI=0.324-0.886; p =0.015) still exhibited a significant protective effect; however, the association between T-allele genotypes and rs3755751 was only marginally significant (OR=1.637, 95% CI=0.999-2.681; p =0.05).

We found that S/R ratio significantly decreased for all stimulation types at Post 1 (P < 0.01), but at Post 2, this reduction was significant after Uni-tDCS (P < 0.01) and Bi-tDCS (P < 0.01), and only marginally significant after Sham (P = 0.05), which suggested that motor sequence performance improvement was maintained by Uni-tDCS and Bi-tDCS, but only partially by sham stimulation.

3 ) whereas the reduction for MWW was only marginally significant (p = 0.05) ( Fig. 3 b). 3.4.

29 However, another study done in Dschang, West Region, Cameroon cites that long distance from the health care facility is only marginally significant (p= 0.05). 30 Hence, the major risk factor associated with incomplete immunization of children after statistically controlling all other risk factors was absence of Lady Health Worker in the area.

The best (but not significant) models with multiple traits based on AIC were a model containing shape PC axes 4–6, in which PC4 and PC6 had only marginally significant effects ( p = .05 and p = .06 before FDR correction), and a model containing EyL, LJL, and ML, in which ML (a nontransgressive trait) had an only marginally significant effect ( p = .08 before FDR correction) (see Table S3 ).

In Model 3, the effect estimates for these two biomarkers became only marginally significant ( p = 0.05 for each) after adjusting for CMV serostatus and diabetes.

We did not observe a significant genetic correlation between male BSB and childlessness but observed a significant positive genetic association between female BSB and childlessness that would become only marginally significant (adjusted P = 0.05) upon the control of multiple testing (table S3).

Higher education level was associated with lower rate of change in disability for women but not men, although the differential impact between the two groups was only marginally significant (β Education slope : −0.061, p > 0.05 men vs. -0.066, p < 0.01 women, ∆χ 2 = 3.623, p = 0.057).

In contrast, problem-solving showed only marginally significant and negligible sex differences favoring women (−0.05 SDs, 95% CI = [−0.09, 0.00], p = .05).

Pairwise comparisons revealed that the BDOC:BTDN and BTDN:BTDP ratios were significantly different from their total or inorganic counterparts ( P < .001), while the difference in C:P ratios was only marginally significant ( P = .05; Fig. 2B ).

However, although the association between BMI and stroke was only marginally significant ( P > 0.05), the OR was greater than 1 in all models.

When compared with baseline, the increase in telomerase activity in the intervention group after 22 weeks was only marginally significant ( d , 0.13; 95% CI, 0.001-0.27; P = .05), whereas the mean change in the wait-list control group was not statistically significant ( d , −0.03; 95% CI, −0.16 to 0.10; P = .64).

Planned comparisons, which were directly encoded in the model, indicated faster response times for the humor compared to the control group, b = −22.0, SE = 8.86, t (95.0) = 2.49, p < 0.05, while the comparison of valid and invalid trials was only marginally significant, b = −3.72, SE = 1.89, t (94.3) = −1.97, p = 0.05.There was a tendency to respond faster to invalid trials.

Dry eyes (100% vs 89.2%), fibromyalgia (31.3% vs 13.5%), depression (38.5% vs 13.5%), and antidepressant use (43.8% vs 21.6%) were also more common in seronegative than in seropositive patients, but the statistical association was only marginally significant ( P < .05).

Head width estimates differed and generally increased from the early to late sampling date, though this relationship was only marginally significant (Tukey's HSD, p = 0.05) and was overshadowed by a significant sampling date × position effect ( F = 7.2; df = 4, 94.4; p < 0.0001).

Besides the coefficient for MPF ML / C ., which is only marginally significant, all the others are significantly different from zero ( Length O : F [1, 38] = 5.62, p < 0.05; Range AP / C : F [1, 38] = 5.20, p < 0.05; MPF AP / O : F [1, 38] = 7.15, p < 0.02).

Effects of steamed WB on postprandial blood variables In Experiment 2, mice fed the WB diet had significantly lower postprandial blood total GIP levels overall compared with mice fed the Control diet (Diet effect p < 0.05), although the difference (diet-by-time interaction) was only marginally significant ( p = 0.05; Figure 2(A )).

reticulata , however, this difference is only marginally significant (median d S XY = 0.0045 in P. reticulata ; median d S XY = 0.0057 in P. wingei ; P = 0.05, Wilcoxon signed rank test).

Results BPD patients showed higher levels of AN compared to the control group ( η 2 = 0.04), though this difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.050).

However, the decitabine effect was not significant, and the overall shock effect was only marginally significant ( F (1,3) = 7.90, P < 0.05 one-tail in an ANCOVA with the change in siphon withdrawal as the covariate) and decitabine did not block it ( F [1,3) = 8.08, P < 0.05 one-tail versus no shock).

However, this sex difference was considered only marginally significant (Chi-square test, p = 0.05).