“marginal significance”

Table 4 shows results from a multiple regression model, which indicated that, while the association with parental warmth was reduced to marginal significance ( p < 0.10) when controlling for other predictors, the aforementioned effects of parental hostility, caregiver-rated health, academic achievement and absenteeism were reduced but remained significant.

For variables with marginal significance (0.05 < P < 0.1) in multivariate analysis (i.e., comorbidity count ≥2 types, operative time >180 min), we retained them in the final model based on two criteria: (1) clinical plausibility—previous studies have confirmed that multimorbidity (≥2 comorbidities) increases physiological stress in elderl

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (v24, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) and statistical significance was accepted at p < 0.05 and marginal significance was accepted at 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10.

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).

Considering the limited sample size and false negative signals, the SNPs, whose P values < 0.05 or marginal significance (0.05 < P < 0.10), were selected and used to construct the GRS model.

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).

And, marginal significance was observed between 7/68 trans -eSNPs and susceptibility to LN (0.05 < P < 0.1), including rs712377 on SLC25A21 (OR = 1.283, 95% CI = 0.984 to 1.671, P = 0.065), rs1391438 on TET2 (OR = 1.266, 95% CI = 0.978 to 1.638, P = 0.073), rs10878953 on CPSF6 (OR = 1.268, 95% CI = 0.977 to 1.647, P = 0.075), rs7529592 on AKNAD1 (OR = 0.701, 95% CI = 0.463 to 1.062, P = 0.094), rs155098 on ITGA4 (OR = 1.264, 95% CI = 0.960 to 1.665, P = 0.095), rs7751485 on CDKAL1 (OR = 1.286, 95% CI = 0.975 to 1.698, P = 0.096), and rs7081173 on LINP (OR = 1.245, 95% CI = 0.962 to 1.611, P = 0.096).

2 , with * indicating a p value < 0.05 and ¶ indicating marginal significance (0.05 ≤ p < 0.1) for comparisons of the no-DR, NPDR, and PDR groups with the control group.

Intriguingly, the transcript levels of most candidate genes showed a moderate to strong correlation with the H3K27ac ChIP-seq signals of the associated SEs, with marginal significance in HMCLs and primary patient samples (r > 0.4, p < 0.1, Supplementary Fig. 4e ).

Variables showing marginal significance (p<0.10) in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate model to avoid premature exclusion of potentially important covariates, as recommended for prognostic studies ( 27 – 29 ).

The significance levels were set at p < 0.05, and the marginal significance levels were set at 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1.

Marginal significance was determined by p < 0.10.

Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and marginal significance was defined as 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1.

Factors that exhibited at least marginal significance ( P < 0.10) in the univariate analyses were included in the multivariate analyses using Fine and Gray proportional hazards model, and subsequently deleted from the model in an enter manner.

Marginal significance (p < 0.1) was reached with saturated fat and cholesterol.

Marginal Significance: The impact of the Indigenous Population Index (K) is only significant at the 10% level (p < 0.1).

The combined treatment with BCE suppressed NG mutation frequencies at doses of 0.000, 0.125, and 0.250 Gy with marginal significance ( p < 0.1, p < 0.1, and p < 0.1, respectively).

Statistically significant improvements ( p < 0.05) were observed in 25 of these comparisons, with an additional one showing marginal significance (0.05 ≤ p < 0.1).

There is also some evidence of the Majority Mid-Advantaged and Mid-Disadvantaged typologies differing from the Advantaged within these middling income levels, though not at the same level (and with only marginal significance (p < 0.1) for the Majority Mid-Advantaged typology).

Entered factors included those with at least marginal significance ( P < 0.1) on univariate analysis, using enter method. and those previously reported as major affecting factors of the functional outcome.

For all testing, significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05 and marginal significance as p < 0.1.

Considering PWHF, there was not only an effect of item type, F (1,17)=5.901, P <0.05, η 2 =0.258, but also a 2-way interaction which only reached marginal significance, F (1,17)=3.879, P <0.1, η 2 =0.186.

Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05, with marginal significance considered at 0.05 < p ≤ 0.1.

The researchers observed that MP/S + tumors were observed to have a marginal significance (HR =1.52; 95% CI: 0.92–2.51; P=0.10).