“marginally significant”

The coefficient for the interaction term of active mediation and supportive profile was marginally significant ( b = −0.119, p < 0.1), indicating that the association between active mediation and leisure-related use within supportive parenting was different from that within slightly-involved parenting profile.

The 5% significance level was considered statistically significant in interpretation of results and we also comment on marginally significant results ( P < 0.10).

However, only species richness ( F = 2.54, p <0.05) showed a marginally significant decrease from July to December whereas species diversity showed no change with season ( F = 2.08, p >0.10).

Regarding the influence of BMI as a covariate, the influence on perceived physical appearance was marginally significant ( β = -.071, p < .10), and that on perceived familiarity was insignificant ( β = .000).

Significant differences ( p < 0.05) were found on the face-name task, ALT, word updating task and backward digit span, and marginally significant difference ( p < 0.1) was found on the picture updating task.

As hypothesised, there was a positive association with accessibility of the local area (p < .05) and a marginally significant association with the type of area the respondent lived in (p < .10): people living in London or another large city were more likely to report good outcomes and those in suburban areas were more likely to report the lower two levels.

The first model for which all AUs helped predict at least a marginally significant ( p < 0.10) variance in the dependent variable emotion/appraisal was selected as the final model.

Differences were considered statistically significant if p <0.05, and considered marginally significant if 0.05< p <0.10.

Both health states only had a marginally significant effect on temperance ( p < 0.10) and no significant effect on perspective.

Regarding overall non-farm labor time, column (1) shows that the coefficient for the logarithm of the assistance amount in youth households is marginally significant at the 10% level ( β = 0.972, p < 0.1), while the coefficients for middle-aged and older adult households do not pass the significance test.

However, during spring we recorded a weak and marginally significant trend ( P = 0.1) towards lower Ψ min (by ~13%) and higher g L (by ~33%) in D trees compared to H ones.

No significant effects of interest were found in the 2 × 2 × 2 analysis, although three effects (Veracity; Region; three-way interaction) were marginally significant, p < 0.10.

2005 ), and marginally significant increased risk ( p < 0.10) associated with mean black carbon and NO 2 concentrations over the previous 2 days ( Dockery et al. 2005a , 2005b ).

In Table 3 , there were significant associations between BMI and atherogenic lipids in non-obese population ( P <0.05) and marginally significant associations in obese population with one or two other metabolic disorders ( P <0.1), while the associations were lost in the population with obesity and more than two other metabolic disorders.

P values of < 0.05 were 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).

Multivariate Cox regression analysis of the significant and marginally significant predictors ( P < 0.10) in the univariate model revealed that the independent predictors of death in the elderly patients were prior history of MI, low eGFR, and poor LVEF in the elderly patients undergoing PCI (Table 4 ), whereas those in the non-elderly patients were prior history of PCI, higher glucose level, poor LVEF, and absence of statin treatment (Table 6 ).

None of the groups showed a statistically significant association with the presence of fruits and only a marginally significant ( P < 0.10) interaction between distance to the nearest water and presence of fruits was found for medium frugivores ( Fig 3 , Table 2 ).

Quadratic relationships between zygomatic major activity and experienced/recognized valence were not significant, except for a marginally significant correlation between squared zygomatic major activity and experienced valence under the dynamic condition in Study 1 ( p <0.1).

Potential effect modification by baseline variables was explored by incorporating interaction terms in the statistical models and further investigated if marginally significant ( P < .1).

Moreover, we found a marginally significant difference between Germany and Poland ( p < .1), where the link was stronger in Poland than in Germany.

In contrast, the relationships between CSC indices and SEs were weak ( P > 0.05); and if marginally significant ( P < 0.1) they were negative ( Fig. 5 and SI Appendix , Tables S7 and S8 ).

Results among the females in our sample only partially supported this hypothesis—there was a marginally significant association between mortality and the probability of being liberally religious in 1971, 1988, or 1997 ( β = 1.52, p < 0.10), but no association with the probability of being weakly or privately religious.

Potential predictors are defined as variables with a marginally significant association (p<0.10) with the outcome variable.

Predictors were retained when marginally significant ( p < 0.1), in case the significance changed in final, more complete models.

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