“weakly significant”

Also the green cluster tends to have slightly larger γ values, but this increase is just weakly significant (p=0.02).

If AK01 was excluded from the analysis the association between geographic and genetic distance was weakly significant ( r = 0.5, p = 0.02) (Additional file 1 : Figure S3).

In a joint regression model including a snp:drug type interaction term, we determined the difference to be weakly significant ( P = 0.02).

Log BMC correlated positively and highly significantly (P < 0.001) with log net W:L in fourth (r = 0.621) and fifth instars (r = 0.652), was weakly significant among females (r = 0.225, P = 0.020), and non-significant in male adults (r = -0.096, P > 0.25) ( Fig 1D ).

The difference EEAS noise–quiet scores showed a weak but significant relationship with ear asymmetry (β = −0.11) and HA experience (β = 0.12), in a weakly significant model (F(3,433) = 3.3, p <.02 , r = 0.15).

Although there were weakly significant interactions between management, region, and time for 16S and COI barcodes (p = 0.021 and 0.010 respectively), these did not translate to an effect of management approach in any region or time point separately (p range = 0.09–1).

When running general linear models, year effects were weakly significant ( p = 0.022) for the first-peak width and non-significant for the other traits (details not shown).

Lack of correlation between IVS thickness and GDF-15 in our study may be explained by weakly significant p-value (p = 0.022) and similar posterior wall thickness between the three groups.

Analysis of the M100 amplitudes revealed a weakly significant main effect of frequency in which higher frequencies have larger amplitudes ( F (5,88) = 2.79; p = 0.022), no main effect for signal type ( F (1,88) = 0.54; p = 0.46), and a significant interaction between frequency and signal type ( F (5,88) = 5.82; p <0.0001).

DWV, however, had a weakly significant phylogenetic separation by species (AI, P = 0.023; PS, P = 0.02).

While the maximal neoantigen quality is higher in those DRs without a clonal neoantigen (568.6 ± 718.1) than those with a clonal neoantigen (464.7 ± 609.2), the difference is not large in magnitude and only weakly significant ( t = 2.267, p -value = 0.024) (Supplementary Fig. 3b , right).

Donor AA genotype adversely impacts survival after HLA single-mismatched HSCT Regarding the effect of donor rs2204985 genotype on the primary outcome endpoints, weakly significant differences were observed in the DFS analysis (long-rank p = 0.024) between patients transplanted with AA and AG/GG grafts, while no statistical significance was reached as to OS (long-rank p = 0.121) for the complete cohort.

However, this was only weakly significant [ p = 0.0245 and 0.0148].

The second comparison between HO_5096_0412 and Newman was the most weakly significant result ( P = 0.025).

However, this was weakly significant only for RcPTH1-4 ( p = 0.025, Table S5 ).

There was a weakly significant correlation (r = 0.41, p = 0.025) between Arg-1 H scores in the tumor parenchyma and stroma ( Supplementary Figure S1 ). 3.4.

However, the weakly significant rain × exposure × season length and exposure × season length × treatment interactions in the full model (both p = 0.025, Table A1 ) indicated that exposures differed with season length in certain cases that we will detail below by the split models.

Together with the weakly significant P value in the dominant model ( P = 0.0258) and the recessive model ( P = 0.0224), there is a reasonable interpretation for these findings: the additive model or the multiplicative model (the allelic comparisons) may be more accurate to describe the effect of EGR3 in schizophrenia etiology [28] .

We found that the off-diagonal flank visits ( k ±1, 8 bins) were weakly significant in three rats over visits in the remaining non-odor compartments ( k ± 2, k ± 3, and k ± 4, 12 bins; p = 0.026, 0.019, 0.036, two-tailed Student’s t test).

The difference between the two models for the 4:3 stimulus is substantial ( t (50) = −7.24, p <.001), whereas the differences for the 2:1 stimulus were non-significant ( t (50) = .23, p = .82), and weakly significant for the 1:1 stimulus ( t (50) = 2.28, p = .027).

For contralateral joint pairs, the phase lag after antennal contact was not significantly different from that before antennal contact in case of homologous HS joints (Watson–Williams test, p = 0.0535) and functionally analogous joints ( p = 0.1328), but was weakly significant for homologous SP joints (Watson–Williams test, p = 0.0270).

However, when plants with no correlated clades were removed from the analysis, there was a significant relationship between plant abundance and average correlation strength for clades associated with a particular plant species ( r = 0.88, two-tailed t -test for rho = 0: p = 0.004, Figure 4 B) and a weakly significant correlation for the number of correlated bacterial clades ( r = 0.67, one-tailed t -test for rho = 0: p = 0.0275, Figure 4 A).

The influence of these egoistic motives on the willingness to donate is positive and weakly significant (β coefficient = 5.751; p = 0.028 and β coefficient = 5.230; p = 0.045) ( Table 3 ).

Participants’ age and gender variables and their VAS scores A weakly significant positive correlation was found between the participants’ age variable and their VAS score ( r = 0.201, p = 0.028).

We found weakly significant ( P -value = 0.0284) enrichment of eQTLs among variants that disable Z-DNA formation relative to all variants that occur in Z-DNA regions (Supplementary Table S7).