Excerpts

However, here too, sphericity was violated and the more conservative corrections returned only marginally significant results ( P < 0.1, Table 2 ).

In the shoulder condition there was only a tendency toward significance, F (2,27) = 2.81, p <.10, r = 0.41.

There was no significant correlation between the NAO WI in successive years, either in the whole of the period 1878–2015, or in the 23-year periods in which there were highly significant relationships between the NAO WI and the warmth sum (Ljung-Box tests, Q ≤ 2.6, P > 0.10 in all cases).

The correlations with maternal negativity were in the expected direction —risk was uncorrelated with negativity for the 7-absent mothers and higher risk was correlated with stronger negativity for the 7-present mothers—but this was only a marginally significant effect ( p <.10).

73), but a marginally significant interaction between Magnitude and Hand ( F (1, 27) = .2.96, p = .10 (two-tailed) or .05 (one-tailed), ƞ 2 = .10).

Consistent with this scenario, at the acute time point, glucose level showed a trend to be elevated 1.2-fold in the 5-day 24 hr group ( p ≤ 0.1) and 1.18-fold in the combined 5-day and 10-day 24 hr group ( p ≤ 0.1).

A statistical trend was defined as 0.05<P-value <0.1, which is only described in the text and not depicted in the graphs.

A marginally significant association ( P <0.10) was found for three additional SNPs: rs1045485 (2q33/ CASP8 ), rs4849887 (2q14/ INHBB ), and rs4808801 (19p13/ ELL ).

Concerning LVM regression, the most important parameter to determine the success of AVR in patients’ outcome, out of the five UPS elements analyzed, MDM2 showed the strongest association (r = -0.44), approaching significance ( p = 0.10).

The corresponding full model (including socioeconomic, cognitive, and risk preference variables) was also significant (R 2 = .18, p<.001), but the negative association of overall correct choices with debt-to-asset ratio was reduced to marginal significance (β = −0.82, t = −1.85, p<.10).

Although factors such as BMI and hypertension approached significance in the interaction ( p < 0.1), these differences did not reach statistical significance ( p > 0.05), further supporting the generalized role of PA across individuals.

This improvement was almost significant for the trained condition (Interaction F (1,42) = 2.8, p = 0.1, partial η 2 = 0.06).

Factors that demonstrated a moderately significant statistical relationship in the univariate analysis ( P <.1) were entered by forward selection in a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model [22] .

Concerning the differences in transitions between land uses in the four mosaics types, only two transition types showed significant differences ( P <0.05), whereas two more were marginally significant ( P <0.10).

The interaction among attention , direction of motion , and targets was marginally significant ( F (3, 21) = 2.516, p < .10) for gain of OKN.

For the tone condition, the difference fell short of significance: χ 2 = 6.32, d.f. = 3, p = .10, but for the syllable condition, the difference was highly significant, χ 2 = 14.7, d.f. = 3, p = .002.

And the group differences of C net and E local at some K cost points were significant ( P <0.05, uncorrected) or marginally significant ( P <0.1, uncorrected).

Borderline significance as indicator of a trend was considered for 0.05<p<0.10.

Furthermore, the three-way interaction of noun concept , grip type and AP was marginally significant ( F 1,27 = 3.61; p < .1; η 2 = 0.0029).

There was a weak trend for an association between UPodo/gCr and male sex (p<0.10) in Fabry patients.

towards earlier arrival) of which eight were significant and four approached significance (0.05<p<0.10).

(OR = 6.17, P<0.05) In addition, the odds of misclassification increased by 1.04 times for each one-year increase in mothers’ age, but this was only marginally significant (p<0.10).

Differences were considered significant if P < 0.05 and marginally significant if P < 0.10.

For the multivariable Cox proportional-hazard regression model, we included factors that were significant or that showed a trend toward significance ( P < 0.1) in a univariable model and performed backward elimination ( P < 0.05) using the “standard method” of removing the variable with the largest P -value.

Because of the small sample size in this pilot study, we also report marginally significant results (p < .10), and are careful to interpret these results with caution.