“marginally significant”

For interpretation, impacts were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 and marginally significant at p < 0.1.

A test of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium showed marginally significant departure (0.05<p<0.1) for 7 polymorphisms, while the others were in Hard-Weinberg equlibrium.

However, the response rate did not vary significantly between demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, occupation, marital status), place of residence, smoking and alcohol history at the residence, or clinical characteristics, except that the rTMS protocol used had some marginally significant ( p -value < 0.10) effect on the response rate.

Variables statistically or marginally significant ( P <.10) in the univariate analysis were introduced in a multivariate model (backward binary logistic regression model).

Rates of guns reported lost or stolen emerge as either significantly positively associated ( p < 0.05; model 2) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10; model 5) with the outcomes in two of the six models, but they certainly drop out when relying on more stringent alpha levels of 0.01 or 0.001.

The variables that were marginally significant with P < 0.10 in the univariate analysis were eligible for entry into the multivariable logistic regression.

Multivariate Cox regression models were explored including ICI type and other covariates presenting a significant or a marginally significant effect ( p -value < 0.1) based on univariate Cox regression models.

The DB condition also showed a marginally significant increase compared with the cage control condition (multiple comparison test with Bonferroni correction, P< 0.1).

A statistically significant model p ‐value was defined as p < 0.05, and marginally significant was p < 0.1.

Marginally significant differences ( P < 0.10) were found in age and BMI between HC and GWI with the GWI group being older and having a higher BMI.

For T2, the correlation coefficient for Yourself for perceived support by older relatives was marginally significant ( p < 0.1), while the coefficients for both Yourself and Future generations were both significant for perceived support to younger relatives ( p < 0.001).

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

With increasing shrub canopy size, the relative abundance of Ascomycota significantly increased ( p = 0.001), while the relative abundance of Basidiomycota showed a decreasing trend (marginally significant, p < 0.1) (Fig. 5 a, b).

The frequency effect was marginally significant ( p < 0.1) and we observed an effect of ordinal position ( p < 0.05).

However, the addition of covariates improved model performance somewhat by decreasing model AIC and resulting in a marginally significant difference in log-likelihood ( p < 0.1).

However, this difference no longer met the threshold for statistical significance when covariates were added to the model (the SHACs remained marginally significant; p < 0.10).

Multilevel clustering did not affect our point estimates but rendered the observed differences in the years 2014–2017 marginally significant ( p < 0.1 instead of p < 0.05).

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

Likewise, the differences between the experimental group and the Chilean study are marginally significant: t (183) = 1.09, p = 0.10, d = 0.21.

Marginally significant results (0.05 < p < 0.10) also were reported to acknowledge trends that may be of interest.

all social-level predictors, neighbourhood-level predictors, etc.) and retained in the next model when marginally significant ( P < 0·10).

The peak torque at the CC increased after the intervention in the rBFR (pre: 40.6 N・m [34.3-48.1], post: 44.8 N・m [37.1-74.0]; p = 0.043; r = 0.64) while a marginally significant increase was noted in the CON (pre: 42.5 N・m [35.7-47.3], post: 45.5 N・m [42.2-62.2]; p < 0.10; r = 0.64) versus no increase after the intervention in the eBFR (pre: 41.7 N・m [34.0-46.3], post: 40.3 N・m [34.3-47.2]; r = 0.00).

For 1m survey, there was a marginally significant difference in the change in both 4 weeks ( Z = 1.64, p = .10, r = .16) and 8 weeks ( Z = 1.33, p = .09, r = .13) (Fig. 3 b).

In addition, in women, a marginally significant ( p < 0.1) positive trend in the OR was observed for DIL with hypertension (model II) and with hypertriglyceridemia (crude model and model II).

However, median serum IFN-γ was 13.9 (7) pg/mL in the depressed group versus 10.5 (4.3) pg/mL for those below the depression score threshold, a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.10).