“marginal significance”

A higher threshold (marginal significance, p < 0.10) was considered when the sample size was 10 or lower. 3.

However, given that most other measures showed no such interaction and this effect only reached marginal significance (p < .1), we are inclined to treat this finding as statistically unreliable, though future research may help clarify whether a genuine interaction exists.

Overall differences in Likert-type data were tested by a multivariable analysis of variance (MANOVA) for all questions with marginal significance ( p -value < 0.1) at the individual question level.

Down-regulation of Atg7 in β-TC6 cells also reduced the expression of complexes I and II, with marginal significance ( P <0.1).

Criterion for marginal significance was P < 0.10.

A difference or an association was considered to achieve statistical significance when p < 0.05; marginal significance ( p < 0.10) was also reported. 3.

To have the latent change model identified, we fixed the residuals and the gender effects above marginal significance ( p > 0.10) to zero, one by one, until we obtained the final model.

Entered factors were those with at least marginal significance ( P < 0.1) with a univariate analysis.

Although differences between ID and CD regarding study outcomes mostly attained only marginal significance (p < 0.1) and effect sizes were rather small, obtained results are plausible with regard to the implemented changes in work design and consistent with one another.

Significance was set at p < 0.05, and marginal significance was set at p < 0.10.

Individuals with children have the same effect size of 2.4 percentage points regardless of how low income their households are ( Table 2 center column), although precision declines to marginal significance (p<0.10) for these estimates.

36 Three out of four models found evidence of an interaction between attitude and exposure to the Pope's message, such that those who had more exposure to the Pope's message had a stronger relationship between their climate change attitude and activism behaviors (RQ1; willingness to join a campaign, b attitudeXexposure = 0.06, p < 0.05, rewarding companies, b attitudeXexposure = 0.24, p < 0.05, and, at marginal significance, punishing companies b attitudeXexposure = 0.25, p < 0.10, see Table 1 and Figure 1 ).

Data analysis Unless noted otherwise, the significance level was p < 0.05, and marginal significance corresponded to 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10 throughout the paper.

Notably, PE 36:2p, 36:3e, the most abundant species in nondemented controls, were reduced substantially in SIVD while PE 40:6p, 40:7e was increased with marginal significance ( p < 0.10) ( Fig. 3 D).

Upon examining variables with marginal significance ( P <0.10) in the univariate analysis, a notable statistical disparity was observed in three cohorts within the methylation group.

For the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), linear regression analysis revealed a non-significant trend (HR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.78–1.05, P = 0.170), although participants in the highest AIP quartile approached marginal significance (HR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.78–1.02, P = 0.100) ( Supplementary Table 3 ).

A degree of efficacy consistency may be maintained by prohibiting subsequent subgroup testing if the overall test does not show any marginal significance, e.g., 0.025 < p < 0.10 (one-sided).

Marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.10) was also reported for group main and interaction effects, as these values may indicate trends toward statistical significance (Amrhein et al. 2019 ).

Variables with marginal significance ( p < 0.10) in univariable analyses were included in the multivariable model: Block 1 (individual factors: age, education, years of practice, depersonalization, empathy); Block 2 (institutional factors: availability of psychological services, sufficient variety of psychiatric medications, referral pathways); Block 3 (systemic factors: incentive policies, PMSC training in residency, PMSC training in continuing education).

Effect modification was considered statistically significant at an FDR-adjusted p-value <0.05, with marginal significance defined as p < 0.1.

the ECIC and CNIC) failed to reach statistical significance ( Figure 8 ), we found no evidence for group-wise regional differences within the inferior colliculus: Tests for both the ECIC and CNIC regions reached marginal significance (for each region, F [2,17] >2.73; P<0.10), and showed a similar between-group pattern of manganese uptake ( Figure 8 i.e. control<salicylate; noise≈salicylate).

Data were analyzed using a significance level of p<0.05 and a marginal significance level of. 05≤p<0.10.

Significance was set at p < 0.05 for all comparisons and marginal significance at p < 0.1; odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs), along with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) are reported for regression results.

Model construction, evaluation and interpretation Feature screening Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was applied to analyze the relationship between features and PTB, selecting variables with marginal significance (p < 0.10).

Univariate screening was performed to determine variables eligible for the predictive model, and factors that reached statistical or marginal significance (p ≤ 0.1) were selected for multivariate logistic regression analysis.