“marginally significant”

Statistical Analysis Statistical analyses were performed using R statistical software (version 3.6.1, R Foundation, https://www.r-project.org/ , last accessed 25 October 2021), where a p -value (after Bonferroni corrections for pairwise comparisons using the t -test) of < 0.05 was considered significant ( p < 0.001 presented as **, 0.001 ≤ p < 0.05 as *), 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1 as marginally significant (presented as # ) and p ≥ 0.1 as nonsignificant (presented as ns).

If a significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10) difference was observed in the placebo or the LC-plasma group, the post-hoc test of delta value (0–8 W) was performed using the non-paired t -test.

Furthermore, the interaction of parental monitoring and shyness showed marginally significant effects on children’s PMPU (β = 0.063, p < 0.10).

All results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10.

No CMF consumption showed a marginally significant association with CMS (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 0.89–3.36, p = 0.10).

Gender was also a marginally significant moderator of social well-being ( β = −0.26, p < .10), but was not a moderator for the social connectedness ( β = −0.10, n.s.) or alexithymia associations ( β = −0.12, n.s.).

For predictive factors that were marginally significant ( P < 0.1), we calculated the ORs and 95% CIs in multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses.

Variables that were marginally significant at a level of P < 0.10 in the univariate analysis were selected in the multivariate model.

Having had an HIV test and PrEP stigma were marginally significant (p< 0.10) in DC.

3 ); however, marginally significant differences (P < 0.1) between Arabica and robusta for above ground dry weight were observed (Table 1 ; Fig. 4 ).

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.

Laccaria laccata had a significant correlation ( p < 0.05) with Co, and marginally significant correlations ( p < 0.10) with As and Mn, and Volvopluteus gloiocephalus with Fe.

All multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, and BMI in addition to other explored variables that were marginally significant correlates of all-cause mortality ( p < 0.10) in univariable analyses.

Nor did we observe any patterns of marginally significant differences, even when applying a looser cluster threshold of p < 0.1.

Although not of primary interest here, we note that in the analyses reported above, the relationship of survival to age at treatment start was positive and marginally significant ( p < 0.10 for onset of clinical signs to NAP, p < 0.05 for onset of clinical signs to time of euthanasia, p < 0.10 for start of treatment to NAP, and p < 0.10 for start of treatment to time of euthanasia).

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.

Among sister‐only families, the estimated coefficient is larger and marginally significant ( b = 0.0198, p < .1), whereas the association is smaller and not statistically significant among brother‐only families (b = 0.0111, n.s.).

In all analysis an alpha level of 0.05 was adopted, but marginally significant results ( P <0.10) are also reported.

Simple effects analyses indicated that Emoji Condition was significant for opinions, F (2, 658.38) = 8.27, and request refusals, F (2, 653.96) = 8.95 and marginally significant for disclosures, F (2, 731.30) = 2.32, p < .10.

Unadjusted HR-pQCT Parameters by KLG In the unadjusted bar plots of sex-specific standardized distal tibia HR-pQCT parameters in men, higher KLG was correlated with lower Ct.vBMD, higher Tt.Area and higher Tb.Area with a marginally significant p-value for linear trend ( p ≤ 0.10; Fig. 2 Standardized distal tibia HR-pQCT parameters by Kellgren–Lawrence grade in men).

BCVA before treatment and imaging findings showed marginally significant associations ( P <0.1).

Similarly, memory function showed a marginally significant improvement among males (DID coefficient = 0.364, p < 0.10), whereas females exhibited a smaller, non-significant gain (DID coefficient = 0.124).

The other results reported in the main manuscript on occasion showed marginally significant effects ( p ≤ 0.10). 6.