“marginally significant”

There was a marginally significant association (P-value < 0.1) in lung function decline in post-menopausal females compared with pre-menopausal females, and adjusting for menopausal status resulted associations between lung function and age acceleration became less strong.

Substitution effect on face-to-face contact frequency Column 4 of Table 5 shows a marginally significant negative association between internet usage and face-to-face contact frequency (Column 4: β = −0.279, SE = 0.160, p < .1).

Results were considered significant when P < .05 and marginally significant when P < .10.

Objective To cross-culturally validate the Health Mindset Scale for Brazil, as well as adapt the terms and questionnaires for adequate understanding of Brazilians, using factor analysis as an instrument to validate its reliability. Methods Cross-cultural validation of the Health Mindset Scale into Brazilian Portuguese using the Beaton method, Cronbach's alpha calculation and factor analysis Results The sample consisted of 215 patients aged between 18 and 87 years (M = 41.98; SD = 15.72), with a mean age between 31 and 50 years (42.0%), and female (52 .6%), a marginally significant difference (p < 0.10) between men and women was observed for item 3.

In multivariate analyses, we estimated the effect (HR) of each of the T‐cell mRNA markers adjusted for the effect of the clinicopathological parameters that were statistically significant or marginally significant in the univariate analysis ( P < 0.10).

For all three experiments, results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 > P ≤ 0.10.

Marginally significant differences (.05 > P < .10) were seen in the period of SCCA diagnosis in both men and women, where those diagnosed in the most recent period (2008-2012) had a lower risk of death than their counterparts diagnosed in the initial study period (2000-2007) (RER men , 0.48, 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.01; RER women , 0.68, 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.03).

Their bias index, displayed in Figure 3 D, appears larger than the control group's at all angles and was marginally significant ( F (1, 28) = 2.84, p = 0.10, η p 2 = 0.09).

The results of this model show that the relationship between funding amount and violation performance is marginally significant ( β = 0.80, p < 0.10).

Differences between treatments were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

For folate in Mozambique, the change was also substantial (28%) and marginally significant (p<0.1, Table 2 ).

Thus, the correlation is significant and marginally significant (i.e. 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10) at these two site.

In a similar vein to other measures, only positive affect was shown to be marginally significant [F (1, 75) = 3.84, p < 0.1] among covariates [F negativeaffect (1, 75) =2.60, p > 0.1; F self−efficacy (1, 75) <1, p > 0.01].

The amount of time the participants had spent watching Family Guy before was also marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

After adjusting for comorbidities and ADL limitations in the next model, the coefficient for the age difference became negative and was marginally significant (−.07, P < .10).

The product term of AMP × PJF exhibited a marginally significant positive correlation with workforce well-being (β = 0.071, p < 0.100), suggesting a weak moderating influence of PJF.

Rank 1 (β=.11, P <.1) and rank 2 (β=.11, P <.1) were marginally significant ( P <.1) because the factors were not significant at the level of 0.05 but were significant at the level of 0.1.

It was also shown that ADHD patients had more problems with social relations with their peers although the effects were marginally significant (i.e., p < 0.1). 3.2.

3, red and Table 1 ) also outperformed the standard MEG helmet by ∼24.5% (excluding the no-preference cases p < 0.05, or ∼19.5% otherwise, p < 0.1 marginally significant) distance accuracy.

All the cross-lagged paths remained significant, except the relationship between functional dependence at T1 and depressive symptoms at T2, which was marginally significant (0.05 < P < 0.10).

In addition, 31% of corals from Butaritari (N = 13) had partial mortality scars associated with the 2004 bleaching event, while none from Abaiang and North Tarawa showed such scars (N = 12); this difference was marginally significant (p = 0.10, permutation test).

Estimates for Specifications 2 and 3 reduced similarly and were both marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in Model 2.

However, comparisons of ΔAIC and R 2 indicated that the simpler MAM containing a linear size effect had substantially greater support than the MAM including a marginally significant non-linear response of basal area growth with tree size (DBH 2 : L = 2.71, P = 0.10; ΔAIC for the MAM with a non-linear size effect was only 0.7 points lower than for the model with a linear size effect; Table 2 ).

Instances of disagreement between the tests clustered around the fit of the protein-coding genes to different trees and in every case involved a significant AU test and a non-significant ( P > 0.100) or marginally significant (0.05 > P ≤ 0.100) WSH test ( Table 5 ).

The interaction effect of “group × intervention period” on BBS score was marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.10): the BBS score of IG was significantly increased after intervention compared to baseline; however, CG remained almost unchanged over the same period ( Table 4 ).