“marginal significance”

First of all, for all three relative mediation models, relative total effects reached significance for variable D 1 (i.e., “Imagine that they were young” condition, 95% Bootstrap CI = [4.34, 15.42], p < 0.001) and marginal significance for variable D 2 (i.e., “Imagine that you were old” condition, 95% Bootstrap CI = [-0.82, 9.79], p = 0.097).

Our study showed that the patient treated with open resection survived for a shorter period than patients treated with GKRS/RT, with marginal significance ( p =0.097).

The INFO-SENS and INFO groups did not differ significantly under Dunn’s test (Δ = −0.803, p = 0.164), whereas the corresponding Welch-corrected comparison reached only marginal significance ( p = 0.097).

4.6%) with marginal significance before and after adjustment of baseline BMI and duration of previous MHT ( P = 0.097 and P = 0.062, respectively).

In unadjusted model, men showed significantly positive association in the age groups 40-49 yr and 50-59 yr, and also positive associating tendency in the age groups 60-69 yr with marginal significance ( P =0.097).

Whereas only marginal significance in non‐drinkers ( P = 0.097) was observed.

No other study covariates were significantly associated with the relative efficacy of CRT, while QRS morphology showed marginal significance ( P =0.097) ( Table 2 ).

Additionally, the association between modified DISCERN ≥3 and favorites showed marginal significance ( p = 0.098).

A main effect of motor evaluation group was found at marginal significance, F (1) = 2.89, p = 0.098, ηp 2 = 0.074, with the average‐motor ability raters covering more distance ( M = 728.27, SE = 9.74) than the high‐motor evaluation group ( M = 545.55, SE = 81.78).

ADV score with a cut-off of 8log showed a marginal significance for DFS ( P =0.098) and OS ( P =0.12).

When adding baseline compatibility scores as covariate, the main effect of training on tension in the dysphoric group became non-significant, F (1, 18) = 1.62, p > .2, η p 2 = .08, while the interaction of training with initial compatibility effect reached marginal significance, F (1, 18) = 3.04, p = .098, η p 2 = .15.

However, after adjusting for surgical staging with lymphadenectomy, the year of diagnosis had a marginal significance (HR=0.99, CI: 0.97–1.00; P =0.098) ( Table 3B ).

While marginal significance was noted in gynecology ( P =.099), given the small number of transactions (n=1170) for recovery follow-ups, findings must be interpreted cautiously.

Prognostic significance of GGH patterns, HBV serum profiles and clinicopathological indicators for patients with HCC Kaplan-Meier analysis in patients with complete tumor resection showed that type I GGH has a marginal significance in association with decreased local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (P=0.099) (data not shown) and type II GGH were significantly associated with decreased LRFS (P=0.002) (Figure 5A ) and decreased overall survival (OS) (P=0.029) (Figure 5B ).

Post hoc comparisons performed regarding the Cluster coefficient identified a statistically significant difference between pre and mid values (t = 10.708, p < .001) and pre and post values (t = 13.360, p < .001) and a marginal significance between mid and post values (t = -1.746, p = .099).

The main effect of Orientation reached marginal significance, F (1, 15) = 3.10, p = .099, η p 2 = .17, with a stronger negative going for upright faces than inverted faces.

Significance was set as p ≤ 0.050 and marginal significance at p ≤ 0.099.

When compared to weight loss, a significant difference was found ( p = 0.018), while marginal significance was observed when compared to muscle gain ( p = 0.099), getting lean ( p = 0.082), and having no specific nutrition-related goal ( p = 0.082). 3.3.

The two-way STEM Female Contrast × Target Stereotypicality interaction attained marginal significance, χ 2 (1) = 2.72, p = .099, indicating a marginally stronger STEM-stereotypic target preference among STEM women than among the other groups, as hypothesized (see Figure 2a ).

We observed a two-fold higher risk of infection for children living in houses with suitable walls for triatomines than for children living in houses without them, with marginal significance ( P = 0.1).

In the multivariable Poisson model, the variables that showed association in the univariate analysis were included, even those that showed marginal 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).

Fully saturated correlation and regression models were examined; paths that did not achieve at least marginal significance ( p < 0.10) were removed to create final models.

Statistical significance was set at P <.05, with marginal significance noted at P <.10.

Effects that approached either significance ( p ≤ 0.05) or marginal significance ( p ≤ 0.10) are reported in the Results Section.