“a significant trend”

Variables with a significant trend ( p < 0.1) in the univariate analysis, were included in the multivariate forward logistic regression analysis.

A significant trend was noted when 0.05 ≥ p > 0.10.

For the X-coordinate, there was a significant trend (p < 0.1) for HC and MDD patients (Table S2).

Specifically, for roots <1 mm in diameter, there was a significant positive relationship in 2020 ( P < 0.05) and positive trends in 2019 ( P < 0.10) while for roots <2 mm in diameter, there was only a significant trend in 2021 ( P < 0.10).

A univariate regression analysis was then used to correlate factors indicating a significant trend ( p < 0.1) between ICH and non-ICH cohorts (“lrm” function in R, “rms”-package) [ 23 ].

In fact, the only method to detect a significant trend of viral transcript abundance to moisture was the Vir DNA ( p ≤ 0.1).

A significant difference was set at P < 0.05, and a significant trend was considered at 0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10.

Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05, and a significant trend defined as p < 0.1.

The alpha wave content of the Mi group showed a significant trend in the CE1 and CE2 tasks in the After condition ( p < .1).

P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance, and results were considered as a significant trend at P < 0.1.

While pressure pain thresholds lowered in the control area they increased in the affected area combining to a significant trend in the normalized data (p < 0.10).

However, as presented in Table 3 and Figure 2 , the HS exposure reduced the jejunal microbial species number at the class and order level ( p < 0.05) and had a significant trend to decrease the jejunal microbial species number at the phylum and family level ( p < 0.10).

The LF/HF ratio of the Mi group showed a significant trend on day 1 compared with that on day 10 ( P <.1) and on day 5 compared with that on day 10 ( P <.05).

Although no voxel survived statistical correction for multiple comparisons ( p < 0.05) in most of the analyses (except LDH in Session 2), there were some voxels that showed a significant trend ( p < 0.10, TFCE corrected; Fig. 2 ).

ATJ (mean = 22.42 °C) was between 20.50 °C to 24.50 °C, with a relatively small fluctuation range (CV 3 = 2.33%); DIF (mean = 9.77 °C) ranged from 8 °C to 11 °C, with a large fluctuation range (CV 4 = 3.85%); however, neither of them showed a significant trend ( P > 0.1).

In addition, given the relatively small number of studied lambs (related both to the complexity of the ovine model and ethical constraints), it was decided to give full consideration in the discussion to the presence of a significant trend, defined as P<0.1.

p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference, 0.05 < p < 0.10 indicates a significant trend, and p > 0.10 indicates no meaningful difference. 3.

Among them, 14 bacterial genera are significantly correlated with BMI ( P < 0.05), while the unclassified o_Rhodospirillales shows a significant trend ( P < 0.10; Fig. 3i ).

A significant trend (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10) was also observed between the MLG_7820 and Bacitracin groups and between the P561 and P537 groups, where the birds from MLG_7820 and P537 had higher lesion scores, respectively.

A significant difference is shown by a p < 0.05, a significant trend is indicated by a 0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.10, and no significant difference is indicated by a p > 0.05. 3.

The percentage of ‘separated’ MUs was relatively small (~20–30%, Figure 6 B right panel), although the Kruskal–Wallis test did not reveal a significant trend with age in all groups of infants ( p > 0.1).

A significant trend was absent in trunk ( P = 0.103) or branch ( P = 0.94) communities.

Following the onset of the pandemic, Linezolid usage experienced a sharp increase in consumption levels (β = 95.64, 95% CI: 49.03, 142.26, p < 0.001), though this change did not extend to a significant trend alteration (β = -2.68, 95% CI: -6.01 to 0.65, p = 0.105).

The estimated incidence did not show a significant trend (χ 2 =2.605, P=0.107); however, the prevalence showed a significant decreasing trend between 2016–2022 (χ 2 =41.196, P=0.000).

The C max was significantly correlated with the dose ( r = 0.606, P = 0.037) although AUC 24 did not exhibit a significant trend toward increasing values as the dose was escalated from 300 to 600 mg ( r = 0.486, P = 0.11).