“only marginally significant”

The difference in the prevalence of hyposmia in the two groups compared was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06) as assessed through the Fisher’s test.

The only significant individual predictors of spirituality were sex and having had a family member or co‐worker diagnosed with COVID‐19, but these accounted for less than 2% of the variance in spirituality (adjusted r ‐squared = .015), and the overall regression model was only marginally significant, F (7, 446) = 1.96, p = .06.

Concerning exploratory behaviour, although only marginally significant, the trend suggests that individuals explore more in environments with less dissolved oxygen ( χ 2 1 = 3.55, p = 0.06) and, consistent with this finding, dissolved oxygen explained 27% of the variance in pool‐level mean exploratory behaviour (Figure 5 ).

A post-hoc correlation of the difference in dyad scores with variant as a collapsed binary variable (non-fluent PPA vs other PPA) revealed a moderate but only marginally significant relationship (Rho = −.452, P = .06).

The predictability effects were significant at FCZ, CZ, CPZ, and PZ ( p s < 0.0001), but only marginally significant at Fz ( p = 0.06).

Although the relationship between the Monkey game and Word Recall Backward seemed to be stronger than the relationship between the Odd-One-Out and Word Recall Backward tasks, this difference was only marginally significant ( Z H = 1.91, p = .06).

Consistent with the hypotheses, in the final model (Step 4), greater infertility stigma for both men and women was associated with higher search for meaning (men β = 0.26; women β = 0.20), however the association for men was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

First, the face and body groups reported significantly greater functional impairment and emotional distress compared with the fingerpicking group (although the difference for emotional distress was only marginally significant from those with primarily body picking, p = 0.06).

Noteworthily, a negative association (although only marginally significant, p = 0.06) was identified between upstream wetlands and geometric mean concentrations of E. coli for all sampling events.

However, this statement is made with strong caution as the multivariate test was—at best—only marginally significant and the effect was extremely weak (Pillai’s Trace V = 0.07, Multivariate F (6, 346) = 2.04, p = 0.06; η p 2 = 0.03; underlying multivariate normality assumptions were met: Box M = 14.98, F (12, 64318.95) = 1.21, p = 0.27).

WNV was detected only in swabs obtained from birds in the 10 7 and 10 5 challenge groups, (5/8, 63%, CI 30–87%, and 2/13,15%, CI 2–39%, respectively) ( Table 1 ), a difference in proportions that was only marginally significant (Fisher’s Exact test p = 0.06), but WNV was shed orally in significantly more birds of the 10 7 group as compared to the 10 3 group (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.009).

However, these conclusions must be taken with caution, as the slopes in the two groups did not differ significantly from each other, according to the Fisher’s transformation test (they were only marginally significant): Z = 1.88, p = 0.060.

The 20:5ω3 followed a similar trend, but differences were only marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

A hypothesis of exponential growth was also supported by Fu's F s in both the north (F s = −5.5, p = 0.03) and the south (F s = −11.8, p = 0); however, Ramos-Onsins' R 2 was only marginally significant in the south (R 2 = 0.038, p = 0.06).

The difference was only marginally significant (t = 2.39 and p = 0.06) between the RS and Cc.

After multivariate analysis, the nutrition status was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06) this could be attributed to statistical methods because the influence of malnutrition on ARIs is well known from many different studies [ 18 , 21 – 25 ].

Our study was underpowered to find any significant association between HLA class II alleles’ frequencies and COVID-19 susceptibility, and the only marginally significant difference was found for DRB1*15 allele (P = 0.06).

[ 15 ] was excluded, the effect size became only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), reflecting that the current evidence base is still insufficient.

Correlation analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.455 between vanin-1 levels in serum and FF, but this was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06).

The same general pattern was found for no-scotoma search in testing (M = .32, SE = .04), but was only marginally significant, t (21) = 1.99, p = .060, d = .42.

Also, the effect of family income-to-needs ratio on sUA concentrations at the 6-month assessment was statistically significant in the complete case model ( Supplementary Table S3 ), but only marginally significant in the model employing MI ( b = −0.06, robust SE = 0.03, p = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.001]).

However, among HIV-uninfected participants, geohelminth infection was associated with lower fat mass and waist circumference ( P <0.005, all) and with HbA1c, although this was only marginally significant ( P = 0.06) ( Table 5 ) Discussion In this study, we had hypothesized that helminth infection in HIV-uninfected participants would be associated with better insulin sensitivity and β-cell function whereas helminth-HIV co-infection would increase the risk of insulin resistance and β-cell function as result of severe immune activation and chronic inflammation [ 39 , 40 ].

The analysis revealed a significant difference between leverage and eigenvector centrality (p = 0.021), while the difference between degree and eigenvector centrality was only marginally significant (p = 0.06).

Anxiety was also positively correlated with intent to comply, but this correlation was only marginally significant (b = 0.20, SE = 0.10, p < 0.06).

We also see in both of these models that wife’s education is still negatively associated with IPV reporting although it is only marginally significant (p = 0.06 and p = 0.08).