“marginally significant”

In Model (2.2): home + daily visit point buffer , park ratio showed a significant positive association with tie formation ( β = 0.127, p < 0.05), and green space ratio was marginally significant ( β = 0.180, p < 0.10).

Derivation and evaluation of functional groups Classification of woody species We included five traits in the hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis that were significant ( P ≤ 0.05) or marginally significant ( P < 0.1) for this growth form in perMANOVA testing of either the short‐ or long‐term datasets, including: lifespan, seed size, seed dispersal, height, and leaf longevity.

Behavioural data Regarding reaction times, hit rates, and false alarms a three-way MANOVAs (target valence x standard valence x attachment security) revealed a marginally significant effect of attachment security (F(1,23) = 3.35, p≤.10, η 2 = .13) on hit rates.

Additionally, the main effect of emotion and the interaction between presentation condition and visual field were marginally significant [ F (1,22) = 3.47, p < 0.1; F (1,22) = 3.21, p < 0.1].

Results In states that adopted ESL prior to 2019, two-way fixed effect analyses suggest a marginally significant increase in rates of nonfatal illness/injury reports across industries (+0.064 cases per 100 full-time workers, p = 0.10) following the implementation of ESL policies.

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

P -values in bold represent significant differences ( p < 0.05) and underline values are considered marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

For the patient experience measure, our results reveal a 2.1% increase in the hospital ratings of HRRP hospitals compared to Non-HRRP hospitals, which is marginally significant at p < 0.10.

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).

TE had no significant differences ( R = 0.20, P < 0.10) between H and L groups but showed more marginally significant differences than H and L groups in RE ( R = 0, P > 0.10) and SE ( R = 0.09, P > 0.10) communities.

Depending on the parameter considered, we found mixed results for IBD; IBD was marginally significant for Nei’s D ( R xy = 0.072, P = 0.10; Figure 3A ) and F ST ( R xy = 0.074; P = 0.088; Figure 3B ) and significant for Lin F ST ( R xy = 0.30, P = 0.001; Figure 3C ).

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 ).

Two variables were found to be significantly associated with variation in spore counts ( p < 0.05), and one had a marginally significant effect ( p < 0.1).

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).

Marginally significant results (i.e., .05 < p < .10) were coded as significant, not null, for this purpose.

In a 2 (Time) × 2 (Condition) RM-ANOVA, there was not a significant main effect for Condition, F (1, 30) = 0.52, p = .47, η 2 = .003, but there was a significant main effect for Time, F (1, 30) = 5.18, p = .03, η 2 = .002, and a marginally significant Time by Condition interaction, F (1, 30) = 2.94, p = .10, η 2 = .001.

The regression of community mean of wing loading was marginally significant at p = .1 but fell well below the threshold without the 200 m data point.

In order to avoid missing important medium‐sized effects and to reduce the corresponding type‐II error rates we also present and discuss marginally significant effects with p < 0.1 (Cohen, 2013 ; Toft & Shea, 1983 ). 3.

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 .

Among all 104 tissue and lineage combinations represented by at least three biological replicates, only three combinations showed significantly more species-specific lipid concentration differences than expected by chance (permutations, P < 0.05 at Wilcoxon test P < 0.01 cutoff) and five showed a marginally significant trend (permutations, P < 0.1 at Wilcoxon test P < 0.01 cutoff) ( 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).

For hip fracture, patients with no comorbidities experienced significantly lower LOS (− 1.22 days, P < 0.05) and lower FIM score improvement (− 3.69 units, P < 0.05) in expansion states than in non-expansion states after Medicaid expansion, while patients with pre-existing comorbidities experienced a marginally significant increase in LOS (2.43 days, P < 0.10) and no significant changes for functional improvement.

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).

We found a marginally significant treatment × status interaction ( β = 0.160, 95% CI = [–0.023 0.342], z = 17, p < 0.10).

17 Those variables significantly associated with outcome and those that were marginally significant ( P <0.10) in univariate analysis were included into multivariate analysis.