“marginally significant”

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 all experiments, results were considered significant with P ≤ 0.05 and were considered marginally significant with 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

Otherwise, the prevalence between bla NDM carrier and antibiotic usage in recent three months (including penicillin, floxacin, polymyxin and metronidazole), drinking status, physical exercise and diabetes were reported marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

trivirgatus suggested a recent bottleneck followed by population expansion, as all three statistics were significantly negative ( p < .05) at five loci (Table S5 ), and marginally significant (0.05 < p < .10) at up to three other loci depending on the test.

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

Leader narcissism showed a marginally significant negative relation with entrepreneurial team performance (β = −0.241, p < 0.10).

After controlling the overlap between NSSI and suicidal behaviors, perfectionism was found to account for a marginally significant 1% of variance in NSSI behaviors F (2, 280) = 2.67, p < 0.10).

The threshold of significance was p < 0.05, but marginally significant effects ( p < 0.1) were also reported.

The sub-sample of Hispanic children (Column 3) showed a marginally significant CEP-attributable increase in reading scores, on average by 0.055 standard deviations ( p < 0.1).

Marginally significant findings at p < 0.10 are pointed out in the results section but omitted in the discussion section due to their low evidential value.

To assess the importance of the explanatory factors, we performed backwards step-wise model simplification using F-tests (employing Type III Sum of Squares to account for the unbalanced dataset due to high mortality in some species-combinations) to obtain the minimum adequate model, containing only significant terms (whereby we retained marginally significant effects, i.e., P < 0.1).

Genes were categorized into highly significant ( p < 0.001 and log 2 FC > 2), very significant ( p < 0.01 and log 2 FC > 1.5), significant up ( p < 0.05 and log 2 FC > 1.0), significant down (p < 0.05 and log 2 FC < -1.0), marginally significant ( p < 0.1 ) and not significant ( p ≥ 0.1 ).

The odds of ART disruption remained marginally significant (aOR = 3.52; 95%CI 0.93, 13.32; p<0.10); neither of the other syndemic health outcomes included as covariates were significant.

To evaluate independent factors associated with ACP, significant or marginally significant ( p < 0.10) bivariate risk factors (using the above-mentioned tests) were examined using univariate and multivariable backward stepwise logistic regression analysis.

For significant or marginally significant ( p <.1) effects and interactions involving valence or face status, follow-up planned comparisons were performed using multiplicity-adjusted treatment-versus-control contrasts in the emmeans package 112 .

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

Grade 1 falls (the least severe, causing no injury) were the most common in both years, and showed a marginally significant decrease in number (0.05 < p <0.1), while the differences for the more severe falls were never significant.

Additionally, a one-unit increase in disengagement coping was associated with a marginally significant decrease in COVID-19 worries by a 0.777 unit while holding other variables constant ( p ≤ 0.10).

Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, but marginally significant interactions ( p < 0.10) were also reported.

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.

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

Variables that were marginally significant (p < 0.10) in the univariate analyses were selected as covariates for subsequent multivariate analyses.

A P value ≤ 0.05 was defined as statistically significant; 0.05 < P value ≤ 0.10 was defined as statistically marginally significant, and a P value > 0.10 was defined as statistically insignificant.

Differences between treatments and day (where appropriate) as well as their interaction were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

Subjects in the highest PM 2.5 quartile for entire pregnancy had significantly higher PSS scores (p-value < 0.05), whereas those in the highest quartile for NO 2 exposure during the first trimester showed only a marginally significant association (p-value < 0.1) (Supplementary Table S3 ).