“marginally significant”

The results of the model revealed a marginally significant interaction between Time and Group, b = 0.3, t (12) = 1.29, p = 0.1.

Providing some support for H1, psychological demands were negatively related to positive well-being at work, flourishing, and work performance; however, the relationship with work performance was trending (i.e., marginally significant, p < 0.10).

The negative effect of a 2-year policy lag ( policy_implemented_lag2 ) is marginally significant (coefficient=−0.154, 95% CI (−0.329, 0.021), *p<0.10), while the effect of a 1-year lag is insignificant.

It was also interesting to point out the presence of values of p marginally significant (0.05≤p<0.10), indicating a statistical tendency of improved performance of the FrOr model in terms of Rd in patients with abnormal performance in the ADL-Glitre test and MSE Xrs in conditions of normal performance in the Handgrip analysis ADL-Glitre test.

For work ability, Model 3.9a revealed a marginally significant interaction between SOC and MHI ( p <.10), which became statistically significant in Model 3.9b after removing non-significant predictors.

Results among the females in our sample only partially supported this hypothesis—there was a marginally significant association between mortality and the probability of being liberally religious in 1971, 1988, or 1997 ( β = 1.52, p < 0.10), but no association with the probability of being weakly or privately religious.

In contrast, the relationships between CSC indices and SEs were weak ( P > 0.05); and if marginally significant ( P < 0.1) they were negative ( Fig. 5 and SI Appendix , Tables S7 and S8 ).

Results were considered significant with P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant with 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

Only the PTGI scores and measures with statistically significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10) associations are reported in the table.

Follow‐up pairwise contrasts showed there was a marginally significant difference between the anomalous and expected targets ( t (88) = −2.17, p = 0.10).

Only pairs with a significant ( P < 0.05) or marginally significant ( P < 0.1) difference are shown.

The results supported Hypothesis 2, as the interaction between narcissism and equity ranking was marginally significant (β = 0.123, p < 0.1).

MYC and IGH :: BCL2 exhibited marginally significant racial differences (0.05 < p < 0.1): the odds of having MYC rearrangements in the Black and Other group were 0.66 times the odds in the White group ( p = 0.092), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (0.41, 1.05), which means the White group had a higher proportion of MYC rearrangements than the Black and Other group did.

Coercive Parenting, however, showed consistently positive, marginally significant associations with child-reported SPP ( r = 0.30, p = 0.100) and parent-reported SPP ( r = 0.31, p = 0.092).

We also find some evidence that male teachers are more likely to interact with colleagues when experiencing heightened symptoms, although this association is marginally significant at p<0.1 level as shown in figure 4 .

Marginally significant differences ( p < 0.1) were found between SXDL3 and SXHZ1 ( p = 0.07895), NMG and SXHZ1 ( p = 0.05159), HB and SXDL3 ( p = 0.06252), NMG and SXDL1 ( p = 0.08621), and NMG and HB ( p = 0.06511). 3.3.

After adjusting for covariates such as age, ethnicity, and BMI, exposure to PFOA and PFOS significantly increased the risk of endometriosis, while PFHxS exposure showed a marginally significant association with endometriosis risk ( p < 0.10).

The living-in-Japan coefficient is negative and marginally significant (−0.134, p < 0.10), indicating a 12.5% earnings decline upon return for SIEs in Japanese-owned companies.

Intergenerational transmission of maltreatment prenatal substance exposure internalizing symptoms externalizing symptoms early adolescence National Institute on Drug Abuse 10.13039/100000026 R01‐042747 R01‐07957 Figure 1 indicates the least marginally significant ( p < .10) path coefficients.

Simultaneously, openness to experience demonstrated a marginally significant positive relationship with job-seeking behavior (β = 0.08, p < 0.10), consistent with this personality trait’s association with exploration and novelty-seeking.

Within ecosystem types or climate zones, 15 out of 20 comparisons between plants and soil bacteria/fungi were significant ( P < 0.05) or marginally significant ( P < 0.10), and these all showed greater declines for plants.

A difference was declared significant when P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant when 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

The DiD analysis results further supported this finding, showing that as r k 1 k 2 progressively deteriorated, the differential response in selection accuracy between CR and RR became marginally significant (0.05 < p ≤ 0.10, Figure 9 ).

The process involves: Feature selection: Harmonic indices ( C n , CV n , P n , P n _SD ) showing significant differences or marginally significant differences (0.05 < p < 0.10) between TA and TC groups in pre‐post changes were selected.

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant (tendency) at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.