“marginally significant”

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

A difference was declared significant when P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant when 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

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.

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

For reasons of clarity, all significant ( p < 0.05) and marginally significant ( p < 0.10) effects are reported in the results section, non-significant effects are mostly omitted.

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).

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).

Results were considered significant when P < .05 and marginally significant when P < .10.

Marginally significant ( 0.05 < p < 0.1 ) and statistically significant ( p < 0.05 ) volume differences are shown in Table 2 as boldfaced and italicized boldfaced values, respectively.

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

The positive effect of wastewater treatment remained significant (β = 0.158, p < 0.05), whereas the coefficient of ammonia nitrogen emissions became weaker and marginally significant (β = −0.132, p < 0.10).

R-square increase by 3.2% due to interaction term is marginally significant, F (2, 133) = 2.31, p = 0.10.

The relationships with wilting scores were marginally significant ( P < 0.1).

Finally, results for viral load in multivariate analysis were marginally significant (p< 0.10), suggesting that CD4 counts are a stronger predictor of HPV positivity than viral load, a finding also consistent with some [5] , [11] , [13] but not all research [12] , [15] , [16] .

Intergenerational transmission of maltreatment prenatal substance exposure internalizing symptoms externalizing symptoms early adolescence National Institute on Drug Abuse 10.13039/100000026 R01‐042747 R01‐07957 Figure 1 indicates the least marginally significant ( p < .10) path coefficients.

The living-in-Japan coefficient is negative and marginally significant (−0.134, p < 0.10), indicating a 12.5% earnings decline upon return for SIEs in Japanese-owned companies.

Treatment differences were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

Also, other left hippocampal subfields (CA1, CA3, CA4, and DG) showed marginally significant relationship with previous VA experiences (total VAQ and peer VAQ) (all p <0.1) ( Table 2 , Fig. 2 ).

As this was a pioneering study exploring a poorly understood phenomenon, we aspired to detect any effect of human emotional odors on horses’ behavior and physiology and also considered marginally significant results, with a criterion of p-values ≤ 0.1.

For all regressions, p ≤ 0.05 is declared significant, 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10 marginally significant, and p > 0.1 not significant. “−” refers to main effects or interactions that were not significant. “NA” (not applicable) refers to main effects or interactions that are excluded from a multiple regression analysis.

Among these metabolites, 1,3-DIMETHYLURIC ACID, 2-Amino-5-chlorobenzoxazole, 4-guanidinobutanoate, 6-Acetamido-3-oxohexanoate, 9-Methyluric acid, Hecogenin, Methyl linolenate, Pristimerin, 8-O-Tigloyldiderroside, Flucytosine, Spicatolide E, and (2-Aminoethyl) phosphonic acid remained marginally significant ( p < 0.1) following multiple-testing correction.

After adjusting for covariates such as age, ethnicity, and BMI, exposure to PFOA and PFOS significantly increased the risk of endometriosis, while PFHxS exposure showed a marginally significant association with endometriosis risk ( p < 0.10).

Significant ( P <0.05) and marginally significant ( P <0.10) interactions were further explored with ‘slice tests’ (i.e. linear contrasts testing one main effect at each level of the other main effect).

resting-state post TSST; F (6, 252) = 90.610, p < .001, η 2 = 0.68) and a marginally significant difference for the main effect of group (F (1, 42) = 3.9, p < .1, η 2 = 0.086), showing a trend towards lower heart rates in the high ruminators.

The correlation between modelled and observed α -diversity among the 26 zones was significant ( p < 0.05) for 7 out of 14 families and marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.1) for two of them ( table 1 ).