“marginally significant”

As would be expected, stunting rates are higher when the samples are restricted to older children, but the only notable impact on the changes is that the marginally significant (p < 0.1) estimated 3.5 percentage point fall in stunting in Rwanda gains slightly in magnitude but loses significance. 3.2.

However, the interaction term between location and product emerged as marginally significant and negative ( p < 0.10).

In a separate adjusted Andersen-Gill model in which the duration of IV antibiotics was modeled with adjustment for all fixed baseline covariates, baseline age remained significantly associated with having an exacerbation event ( p = 0.04) and marginally significant in all other models ( p < 0.10).

Results of the two-tailed t -test showed that all pyrethroids showed significant loss ( p < 0.05) with the untreated jar and the silanized jar, and all pyrethroids except permethrin showed marginally significant loss ( p < 0.10) in the vortexed jar.

Two models were marginally significant, p < 0.10.

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

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).

To evaluate independent factors associated with NOSVA (time-dependent variable), significant or marginally significant univariate risk factors ( p < 0.10) recorded prior or at the time of the first episode of NOSVA, were examined using backward stepwise multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model; septic myocardial dysfunction and patient severity as assessed by SAPS II score at ICU admission were also included in the model; thus, the five variables included in the model were SAPS II score at ICU admission, age, septic myocardial dysfunction, renal and non-renal SOFA scores at day 1 of septic shock.

We only report main effects and interactions involving the three experimental factors and only if the simple effects in follow-up analyses were at least marginally significant ( p < .1).

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.

Associations were considered statistically significant for p < 0.05 and marginally significant for p < 0.10.

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.

Test result is considered significant if p - value < 0.05 (*) and marginally significant if p - value < 0.10 ( · ).

A paired-samples t-test revealed a marginally significant effect in learning gains when low prior knowledge students were assigned to Tutor Mode (p = .10).

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was statistically significant for site B (R s =0.83, p=0.022), marginally significant for site E (R s =0.73, p=0.10) and not significant for site F (R s =0.55, p=0.20).

The size of the full yingchou network was still marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in Model 3, and participants’ age was significant ( p < 0.05), with older participants less likely to report commercial sex in the past year.

Asia, Latin-America & the Caribbean and Eastern Europe & Central Asia) with two more marginally significant (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa, High-Income; p<0.10).

This difference was marginally significant ( P -value <0.1) (Additional file 1 : Figure S2).

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.

A 3 (condition: observation versus fair play versus exclusion) × 2 (segment: first half versus second half) ANOVA showed a marginally significant main effect of condition ( F (1, 36) = 2.46, P = 0.10, η p 2 = 0.12).

This model was used to test for significant ( p = 0.05 threshold) and marginally significant ( p = 0.1 threshold) differences in the following traits: φCO 2 max, app , φCO 2 max, abs , φCO 2 max, abs PSII , 1/ k , α , A sat , R d , and F v /F m .

No other combination of [facial expression and V-A-D] showed a significant main effect between the two genotypes, although we observed a marginally significant ( p <0.1) difference in angry expression with valence rating ( F 1,120 = 3.45, p = 0.07) and in neutral expression with valence rating ( F 1,120 = 3.44, p = 0.07), which were consistent with the analysis with representative values.

More importantly, the interaction effect between the reward type and product customer satisfaction was marginally significant [ F (2,362) = 2.950, p < 0.1, η 2 = 0.016].

These results remained marginally significant ( p < 0.1) following FDR correction. fMRI Results As a data quality check, a main effects analysis was performed for the related and unrelated pairs in the noTMS condition.

Further, we observed a significant effect of ROI [ F (4, 212) = 7.181, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.12] and a marginally significant effect of group [ F (1, 53) = 3.378, p < 0.1, η p 2 = 0.06].