“marginal significance”

Variables showing associations with a p <0.05 and with a marginal significance in the univariable analysis (p <0.1) were entered into the multivariable model.

For exercise, there was marginal significance at p < 0.10 [ 49 ] for the interaction effect between group and time (F(1, 118) = 3.474, p = 0.065, partial η 2 = 0.029).

The analyses also revealed some enriched terms with marginal significance, involved in biological adhesion, pattern specification, embryonic morphogenesis, appendage development and limb development ( P <0.1).

While some of the associations for obesity reached marginal significance ( p < 0.10), there was no discernible association with general health and injury.

However, cases of non-GCB type disease, as defined by the Tally algorithm, exhibited worse PFS with marginal significance ( P <0.1).

Data concerning T-anxiety evidenced a statistically marginal significance ( p = 0.10), which was significant under one-tail criteria.

Entered factors included those with at least marginal significance (P < 0.1) on univariate analysis and those previously reported as major affecting factors of the early functional outcome at day seven and 90 days mRS outcome .

Due to the small sample, marginal significance (0.05 < P < 0.10) is also reported.

Marginal significance, also referred to as trends, was defined as p < 0.1.

Focus is placed on those constructs achieving at least marginal significance ( p ≤ 0.10) and hence the largest relative effect as this is a small sample and the intention of the analysis is hypothesis generation.

Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05; marginal significance was defined as p<0.10.

The negative association between log(uMMA) and eGFR was observed with marginal significance in both the 2001 sample (b = −2.13, p = 0.10) and the 2003 sample (b = −4.48, p = 0.06).

Possibly predictive factors were identified using three analyses: classification and regression tree analysis, marginal significance ( P < 0.1) within a full-model logistic regression, and/or selection within a forward-selection procedure in a logistic regression.

Positive standardized response mean effect sizes indicated modest improvement in nine of 12 symptom measurements with marginal significance ( p < 0.10) for improvement in guilt [20, Effect Size (ES) = 0.45] and depression (21, ES = 0.39).

Third, we created multivariable models adjusted for factors with statistical significance ( p < 0.050) or marginal significance (0.050 ≤ p < 0.100) in comparison analyses, in addition to sex, age, and body mass index.

Statistical significance was determined at p < .05 and marginal significance at p < .10.

We defined statistical significance at p<0.05 and marginal significance at p<0.10.

This inversed relationship between high TmS and improved survival can be appreciated across all patients with TNBC in METABRIC with marginal significance ( n = 214, HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.44, 1.12, log-rank P = 0.1; Fig. 4i and Supplementary Table 7 ), likely reflecting that most of these patients received systemic therapy.

We observed a small but significant increase in PGE 2 in HaCaT exposed to calcipotriol; pre-incubation with AVX001 reduced the stimulatory effect, reaching marginal significance ( p < 0.1) at the highest dose used (3 μM) ( Figure 1 C).

The group of obese women in our study reached only marginal significance (p<0.10) though.

Cibersort analysis on tumor‐infiltrating immune cells Based on analysis, several types of immune cell proportions were different at significance ( p < 0.05) or marginal significance level ( p < 0.10) in HCC versus non‐neoplastic tissue, as shown in Table 5 .

To distinguish between good and poor performance, we used a threshold at the marginal significance level of p < 0.1.

In the comparison, we filtered the variables with statistical significance ( P < 0.05) or marginal significance ( P < 0.1).

Correlations for scores were significant to marginal significance for sessions 1–3 (ranging from R = 0.43 to 0.52 with p < 0.1) but not significant for the fourth session (R = 0.13, p = NS).

For mCA types with marginal significance ( P < 0.1), we then conducted logistic regression to test for association using a Bonferroni correction to account for the 156 independent tests.