“marginally significant”

Two models were marginally significant, p < 0.10.

In the model building process, univariate logistic analyses were initially used to assess the relationship between each of the covariates and trajectory patterns; only those having significant or marginally significant association ( p -value <0.10) with trajectory patterns were further evaluated in the multivariable logistic analyses.

late), stimulation intensity (three levels), and interval (five levels) as within-subject factors revealed only a marginally significant first-order interaction between phase and interval (p < 0.1).

After constructing the full model containing all the predictors listed above and their interactions, we simplified the model utilizing a stepwise backwards elimination procedure based on the significance level ( p < 0.050) of the predictors, in each step dropping the predictor with the highest p value, until reaching the minimal adequate model containing only significant or marginally significant ( p < 0.100) effects.

Results were considered significant with P ≤ 0.05 and were considered marginally significant with P ≤ 0.10.

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

The results also revealed a marginally significant inconsistent mediating effect for compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures between forbearance and psychological distress (β=-0.010, 95% CI=-0.035, 0.000, p<0.1).

However, it does suggest a marginally significant trend at the 10% level (p < 0.10).

Use of public restrooms was marginally significant, with higher rates among men (39.8% vs. 33.8%, p < 0.10).

As can be seen in the new model, all relationships hypothesized were significant (path LOC → NACH and NACH → CA were significant at p = 0.001; LOC → CA and LOC → RT at p = 0.05; NACH → RT was marginally significant at p = 0.1).

Seven SNPs in six genes ( CDH23 rs2394795, FAS rs1468063 and rs2862833, GJB2 rs3751385, HOTAIR rs87494, SIK3 rs6589574, STAT3 rs1053005) were found to be significantly different between two groups under at least one genetic model ( p < 0.05; Supplementary Table 3 ), and eight SNPs in seven genes ( FOXO3 rs2802292 and rs10457180, GAPDH rs6489721, HDAC2 rs10499080, hOGG1 rs1052133, PTPRN2 rs10081191, STAT3 rs1053023 and TAB2 rs521845) were marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.10; Supplementary Table 3 ).

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

While caregivers’ preferences had a marginally significant association with patients’ actual place of death ( p -value < 0.10), we did not find any association between patients’ preferred and actual place of death.

All statistical results were considered marginally significant at P < 0.1 and significant at P < 0.05.

Mediation by improved food security was marginally significant in women for both immediate recall (0.018 and 2.8%; P < 0.10) and delayed recall (0.021 and 2.3%; P < 0.10) ( 34 ).

Variables that were marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in the univariate analysis, and that had clinical relevance were included in the regression models.

For confounding factors that showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) or marginally significant differences (0.05≤P<0.1) in association with both RGV and sleep disturbance and might interfere with the primary study results, the present study performed adjustments using a multivariate logistic regression model designed to identify independent predictors of postoperative sleep disturbance.

From d 0 to 21, ADFI had a marginally significant improvement ( P < 0.10) in pigs fed up to 10 LL in the diet.

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.

Covariates were selected based on the following criteria: (1) a priori knowledge from the literature, (2) significant or marginally significant differences in baseline characteristics between study groups ( p < 0.10), and (3) statistically significant associations ( p < 0.05) when included in initial LMMs. 65 To assess the persistence of treatment effects, WOMAC measures at baseline and at three months post-intervention were also compared.

All variables demonstrating a marginally significant association with visit confirmation status in bivariate analysis ( P < 0.10) were considered for inclusion in the multivariable model.

The partisan associations became marginally significant ( P < .1) after omitting nonexpansion states ( Appendix Table A3 ).

However, in the case of arousal (χ 2 =5.2, P=0.074), the dominance subscale (χ 2 =5.14, P=0.076), and the number of intrusive memories (χ 2 =5.35, P=0.069), a marginally significant difference between groups was found (0.05<P<0.10).

For the 0-back task, there was significant positive activation in Ch 21 ( p < 0.05 ), and marginally significant positive activation in Ch 10/22 ( p < 0.1 ).

For a post-hoc analysis, significant variables (p < 0.05) and marginally significant variables (p < 0.10) were tested using Tukey’s multiple comparison test at the p < 0.10 threshold.