Barely Significant

Excerpts

7,030 sentences · 1 filter applied

weakly significantp =0.0691.4× alphaqualifiedgold
Figure 2 also shows that the negative epistemic trust → perceived risks link was significant (β = −0.364, p < 0.001) and the positive epistemic trust → perceived benefits link was weakly significant (β = 0.067, p =0.069), but it was only significant at p = 0.10, hence, supporting Hypotheses 9 and 10.
approached significancep = 0.071.4× alpha
Similarly, after including PM 2.5 in the models, odds ratios for cardiovascular disease remained significantly higher in the second ( p = 0.04), third ( p = 0.001), and fourth ( p = 0.001) and approached significance in the fifth ( p = 0.07) quintiles of vulnerability, and for cardiopulmonary disease, in the third ( p < 0.001), fourth ( p < 0.001), and fifth ( p < 0.001) quintiles of vulnerability, compared with census tracts with the lowest vulnerability scores.
marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
marginal significancep = 0.071.4× alphagold
Maternal education (OR: 1.56 (95% CI: 0.98–2.46); p = 0.057), was marginally significant and was included in the multivariate analysis; additionally low birth weight showed marginal significance (OR: 2.90 (95% CI: 1.12–7.44); p = 0.07), however the large number of missing values for birth weight (19.2% missing) and paternal age (10.9% missing) reduced the potential value as predictive factors and were therefore not included in the multivariate analysis.
a trend toward significancep = 0.071.4× alpha
On the other hand, prenatal care through private health services, compared to public services, showed a trend toward significance for the later introduction of CF ( p = 0.07), while birth by vaginal delivery and receiving maternal milk as food upon leaving the hospital after birth showed a trend toward significance for the earlier introduction of CF ( p = 0.05 and p = 0.09, respectively) ( Table 3 ).
fell just short of significancep = 0.071.4× alphagold
(2) In the analysis including only participants where the mother was the primary caregiver (91% of the families), results were comparable to the main analyses, although the interaction between time and condition was statistically significant only for conduct problems (b = −0.08, se = 0.04, p = 0.03) and fell just short of significance for HCC (b = −0.39, se = 0.22, p = 0.07) when using p < 0.05 as a cut-off point (see Table S5a,b ).