“marginally significant”

To model the association of the PRISM-PC questionnaire domains with the dependent variable (acceptance versus refusal of telephone screening with the TICS), we used logistic regression and adjusted for covariates found to be significant or marginally significant ( P < 0.10) in bivariate analyses.

Table 3 shows that among the ANMs observed in both rounds, there was evidence that daily proportions of time spent on non-work activity decreased for ANM-3 in facility-A (46.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.041) and for ANM-5 in facility-B (42.5% vs 21.1%, p = 0.035); marginally significant reductions were also observed for ANM-4 and ANM-7 in facility-B ( p = 0.100 and p = 0.064, respectively).

Only significant ( p ≤ 0.05), or marginally significant ( p ≤ 0.10), associations are described.

Facial EMG Zygomaticus reactivity The first model assessing the objective outcomes (see Figure 2 A) yielded a marginally significant main effect, χ 2 (2) = 4.45, p = .1, which was driven by losses ( M = 12.34%, SD = 40.65%) significantly increasing zygomaticus reactivity compared to null outcomes ( M = 1.79%, SD = 4.99%), b = 10.55%, t (88) = 2.11, p < .05.

Model 3 includes the drop as a continuous variable; a one-unit increase in the size of the drop is associated with a 4 % lower hazard of a second birth, and the coefficient is marginally significant ( p < .10).

Marginally significant results (p < 0.1) are reported in the results, but only significant results (p < 0.05) are further discussed.

The difference was marginally significant (p < 0.1).

0.39) was marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

Variables showing statistically significant difference ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant difference (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10) would be indentified and multivariate logistic regression analysis would then applied.

The relationship between predictor variables and the outcomes of interest were considered marginally significant at the P < 0.10 level and significant at the P < 0.05 level.

Because of the small sample size in this pilot study, we also report marginally significant results (p < .10), and are careful to interpret these results with caution.

To determine independent predictors for MACE, a multivariate Cox regression analysis was developed with the significant predictors ( P < 0.05) and the marginally significant ones ( P < 0.10) from the univariate model. 3.

Human Nature For HN traits, there was a significant main effects of Player, F (1, 216) = 85.14, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.28, as well as a marginally significant main effect of Condition, F (1, 216) = 2.79, p = 0.10, η 2 = 0.01.

Household income significantly predicted increased levels of cooperation, with high-income individuals donating 84 p more than low-income individuals (β = 0.84 [0.09; 1.59], p < 0.05; Table S4 and Figure 2 ) People experienced a marginally significant increase in the feelings of sectarian threat during the riots, compared to before and after the riots (β = 0.25 [−0.03, 0.52], p < 0.1; Table S5 ).

We also tested by means of Welch two-sample t -tests whether male and female participants obtained significantly different scores on each scale: marginally significant differences due to participants sex emerged for ASI Hostile [men scored an average of 2.15 vs. an average of 1.65 for women, t (29.35) = 1.73, p < 0.1], whereas for the remaining scales no differences due to participants’ sex emerged [all t s < 1].

We calculated the summary effect estimate using both fixed and random effect models, since the p-value for the test of homogeneity was marginally significant ( Table 3 ; p<0.10), which suggests some heterogeneity may be present and the variance between studies should be incorporated into the analyses to obtain confidence limits.

Educational level effects became marginally significant (p = 0.10) while the nutritional state stopped being significant (p > 0.10).

We did not use a strict stay criterion for identifying predictors in the multivariate model; predictors were included in the multivariate model if they were marginally significant in the univariate model (p<0.10), clinically important, or strongly prognostic.

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

The linear regressions were considered significant when P < 0.05 and marginally significant when P < 0.1.

A marginally significant correlation was also found in the alignment of State #3 ( r (54) = 0.22, p = 0.10).

However, due to modest sample size, we also interpret marginally significant effects of P ≤ 0.10.

In MDD, we found significant correlations between AD values derived from free-water corrected data and scores from the PSWQ and PDSS (findings for the PSS were marginally significant at 0.05 < p < 0.10) such that, as scores on these stress measures increased, free-water corrected AD decreased (see Fig. 3 for scatter plots depicting these results).

For genetic markers with a marginally significant (p <0.1) genotype by age (age ≤2 years and >2 years) interaction, regression models were fit to each age group separately.

S4 A , Supplementary Material online). When a test for general population differentiation, that is, irrespective of malaria, was applied using the X T X statistic described by Gunther and Coop (2013) , significant ( P < 0.05) signals were found for SNPs rs1128127 in the DERL3 gene and rs84833095 in the TLR1 gene, and marginally significant signals ( P < 0.10) were found for SNPs rs2706384 in the IRF1 gene and rs1803632 in the GBP7 gene ( supplementary fig.