“marginal significance”

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

Statistical analyses were performed using R (Version 3.5.1) [ 51 ], with significance defined as p < 0.05 and marginal significance as p < 0.10 (two-sided tests).

A Moran’s I test also indicated significant spatial autocorrelation ( p = 0.001) in the rates for TROs and marginal significance for VSOs ( p = 0.10).

Marginal significance was considered ( p < 0.10) as we wanted to reduce the risk of Type II error [ 55 ]; we determined the risk of not diagnosing someone with potential mental health issues (i.e., suicidal) was greater than misdiagnosing someone.

Additionally, sex and multifocality were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis with marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.1).

Marginal significance values (p < 0.10) show that among Hispanics, there may be a higher intake of vegetables and lower intake of sweets among the low total daily caloric intake group.

Regarding the effects on HB levels, K and J both achieved potent effects ( P< 0.01, P< 0.05), whereas Y reached marginal significance ( P <0.1).

Model 1 adjusted for age and sex, Model 2 adjusted for all variables except baseline ASPECTS with at least marginal significance ( P < .1) on univariate analysis, and Model 3 adjusted for all variables with at least marginal significance ( P < .1) on univariate analysis.

Marginal significance was set at P ≤ .10 to detect differences that may be clinically relevant and warrant further analysis in future studies with larger sample sizes.

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

To determine the significance of effects, we adhered to traditional significance levels of p <0.05 and also note marginal significance at p <0.10.

Entered factors were those with at least marginal significance ( p < 0.1) in a univariate analysis. p -values of <0.05 were considered significant.

As for the cases of deaths due to COVID-19, the association is observed with temporality of the epidemiological weeks (χ2 = 2599.84; df = 1; p-value <0.001), PHC coverage strata (χ2 = 24.85; df = 2; p-value <0.001), PHC quality strata (χ2 = 55.42; df = 1; p-value <0.001) and social isolation rate (χ2 = 9.48; gl = 1; p-value = 0.002) as well as the demographic density (χ2 = 3.12; df = 1; p-value = 0.07), bed/population ratio (χ2 = 2.75; df = 1; p-value = 0.09) and the quantity of COVID-19 cases (χ2 = 3.10; df = 1; p-value = 0.07) diagnosed with marginal significance ( p-value <0.10), Table 3 .

A positive effect was also observed at a marginal significance level in the “equal subjective age” group ( p < 0.1, Model 2).

In this subgroup, there was also a marginal significance for an increase in FEV 1 (76.6±18.7 to 79.7%±21.5% predicted, P=0.10) and a decrease in blood lymphocytes (2462 (2119–2949) to 2287 (1779–2948)/μL, P=0.058).

In contrast, internet censorship and internet coverage was associated with lower reported number of both cases and deaths during the pandemic but at only marginal significance (p < .1).

Multivariate logistic analysis was subsequently performed to determine the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the use of Twitter and Facebook and engagement with NCIC content on Twitter and Facebook after adjusting for variables that achieved marginal significance (p< 0.1) in the univariate analysis.

In addition, despite marginal significance, pooled colostrum feeding on a farm had a negative impact on seroprevalence (coefficient = -0.90, p = 0.10).

Conversely, differences in female and partner ages were statistically significant ( p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively), with habits of tea consumption showing marginal significance ( p < 0.10).

The thresholds for statistical significance is set at p < 0.05, and marginal significance is set at p < 0.1.

Additionally, age ( p = 0.057), INR ( p = 0.080), infection ( p = 0.088), and hepatic encephalopathy ( p = 0.090) demonstrated trends toward marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.10), likely reflecting the limited sample size and reduced statistical power.

Compared to those with a dominant hierarchical culture, local governments with a dominant egalitarian culture has a higher level of equal public participation but only at a marginal significance level (MD = 0.52, p < 0.1) and have no difference in authentic public participation.

The insula activity in the nonsuicidal depressed patients was at an intermediate level between the suicide attempters and healthy controls, with a marginal significance level when directly compared to each group (p < 0.1, post hoc Tukey’s test).

However, this particular association was diminished to marginal significance with the inclusion of other factors ( p ≤ 0.10).

The three-way interaction of AI complexity, intangibility, and reliability was found to reach marginal significance [Pillai’s trace=0.074, F (24, 1,359)=1.43, p <0.10, with an effect size of ηp 2 =0.025], implying that approximately 2.5% of the variance of the dependent variable is associated with the interaction of the three factors.