“marginal significance”

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.

A multinomial logistic regression showed significant associations for the Moderately Attained profile at both time points and for the Resistor profile at T2 (also marginal significance at T1, with 0.05 < p < 0.10 ) At T2, students who were one standard deviation above the mean on negative math emotions were less than half as likely to be in the Moderately Attained or the Resistor profile, compared to their odds of being in the Devalued/Ambivalent profile.

Statistical significance was taken to be P < 0.05 and marginal significance as 0.05 ≤ P < 0.1 in all analyses.

Although the BC interaction shows marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.10), suggesting some interactive effect, it may be conditionally retained.

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

The results showed the TT genotype carriers of Chinese population may have a relative lower risk for the development of glioma compared with the TC + CC genotype carriers only at the marginal significance threshold ( P < .1; OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.07–0.94) (Table 5 ).

This difference attained statistical significance compared to internal medicine ( P < .04) and anesthesia ( P < .04), and marginal significance compared to emergency medicine ( P < .10).

The interaction effect between EPA, PGE2, LXB5, LXB4, and APOE4 on global cognition was significant ( p < 0.05), while PGD2, LTB4, and LXA4, 5-HEPE and RvD3 showed marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.1) (Fig. 4 B).

The growth curves for weight differed between the CSE group and the non-CSE group, with marginal significance ( P = 0.10).

The difference in the percentage of infants per condition who habituated within 14 events also approaches marginal significance (2X2 Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0.10; 95% CI on the difference [-1, 36]).

The marginal significance ( p < 0.1) warrants caution in interpretation given the small male subsample ( n = 5).

The results are presented as the incidence rate ratio (IRR), with the level of significance set at p < 0.05 and the marginal significance set at p < 0.10 because of the small sample size.

Additionally, marginal significance was reported in some subscales of the FAD, including roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behaviour control and general function ( p < 0.1).

Predictors exhibiting marginal significance (P>0.1) in the final multivariate model were excluded.

Multivariate analysis showed marginal significance between disease diagnosis and gender ( p < 0.10), and statistical significance between disease diagnosis and income ( p = 0.03).

Considering that the total number of participants in the PFT cohort was less than 1,000, with 301 participants in the COPD group, the marginal significance was set at p ≤ 0.1 for the end point incidence rate and related HRs ( 23 ).

Therefore, we found only marginal significance ( P < 0.1) between treatments in sand, but the opposite trend than we observed in loam.

Differences were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05, and marginal significance was assumed at 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.

However, if we also consider the marginal significance ( p = 0.10), the RMSSD, variable extracted from the ECG signal, was seen to be different between the two groups ( p = 0.06), with the emotions judged as positive eliciting higher values for RMSSD than negative counterparts.

When combination of enhancement and IPH was used for culprit plaque classification, DL-VWI showed higher AUROC (0.91; sensitivity 100%, specificity 81.6%) in diagnosing culprit plaques than Conv-VWI (0.84; sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 79.6%), with marginal significance ( P = 0.10).

An additional six GPLs were reported to be upregulated with marginal significance ( p < 0.1): PE 18:1_22:5, PE 18:2_20:2, PC 18:1_20:4, PC 18:2_20:3, PE O 16:0_22:5, and PE O 16:0_22:4 [ 18 ].

Only covariates demonstrating marginal significance ( P < 0.1) were considered for inclusion in the subsequent multiple linear regression analysis ( Supplementary Table S1 ).

ether/plasmalogen PCs or unsaturated PCs, were found in lower level in the severe compared to the moderate category of patients with marginal significance (p<0.10).

In the initial univariate screening, variables with marginal significance (P<0.1) were identified as potential prognostic factors and included in the multivariate Cox regression model for further validation.

Similarly for IMMACULATE, the fully adjusted HRs were 1.13 (95% CI: 1.04–1.22) for MACE and 1.11 (95% CI: 1.01–1.22) for HF and only the fully adjusted model showed significant improvement from the unadjusted model with significance for IDI ( p -value < 0.05) and marginal significance for cNRI ( p -value < 0.10).