“marginally significant”

A marginally significant group effect on the position weighting factor was found with higher weighting of position in CRPS-patients with fixed dystonia than in controls (p<0.10).

Multivariate Cox regression analysis (step-wise method) including significant univariate variables and marginally significant variables ( p < 0.10) in the univariate analysis was performed to determine the independent prognostic factors for new-lesion PCI.

The comparison of RTA vs assault survivors by Poisson multilevel regressions yielded significant (non-PTSD group: Z = 2.32, p < 0.05) or marginally significant (PTSD group: Z = 1.65, p < 0.1) differences in the frequency of intrusions during the evening.

For sentences with a missing VP2, the contrast between main and embedded S1 clause was marginally significant (33 vs. 41%, z = 1.65, p = 0.10). 5.3.

Sleeping in a risky place and having a previous diagnosis of diabetes were marginally significant at the p<0.10 level.

The ANOVA test revealed a marginally significant main effect and medium effect size of the lighting condition (multi and mono) [F(1, 9) = 4.56, p < . 10 , η 2 = . 0336 ]; in addition, there was an interaction effect between the lighting condition and the light side (own side and the partner’s side) [F(1, 9) = 6.39, p < . 05 , η 2 = . 0415 ].

A main effect for time was observed (p < .05) suggesting that both groups appeared to increase in reports of EQ over time, with only a marginally significant increase in total EQ for that was greater for the intervention group, as revealed in the Condition by Time interaction (p <.10).

For interpretation, impacts were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 and marginally significant at p < 0.1.

Plan choice has a marginally significant effect on receipt of speech therapy, yet the effects are only significant for non-users and frequent users ( p <0.10).

There were two variables with a marginally significant ( p ≤ 0.10) association with condoms use at last sex: having sex with more than one sexual partner (AOR 3.38; 95% CI 0.87, 13.10) and speaking to at least one sex partner about HIV testing (AOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.14, 1.02).

Finally, despite low statistical power ( n = 3), we observed marginally significant trends ( P < 0.10) between key metabolic pathways and HIX ( Table 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 .

However, after personal resources were entered into the equation, the direct effect of leadership psychological characteristics was marginally significant ( B = − 0.10, p < 0.1 ) and the effect of personal resources was significant ( B = −0.11, p < 0.05 ).

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).

The moderating effects were statistically significant if the standardized coefficients of the interaction terms were significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

Results were considered significant at P < 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P < 0.10.

Result were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05, or marginally significant at p < 0.1.

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

The results were considered significant at p < 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.10.

We considered the results to be statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05, and marginally significant at p ≤ 0.1.

For multivariate analyses, we adjusted for marginally significant ( p < 0.1) univariate factors as shown in Additional file 4 .

Hypothesis H3a was supported on account of the marginally significant and negative interaction term (B = −0.15, p < .10) for the interactive effect of leader crisis communication and salespersons' core beliefs challenge on their positive stress mindset.

Factors were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05 but for these analyses we also included factors marginally significant at P < 0.10.

For the likelihood of future AI use, the coefficient for female physicians was negative (B=–0.856; P =.08), which is not significant at the conventional α of 0.05 level but would be considered marginally significant at a liberal threshold of P ≤.1.

A test of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium showed marginally significant departure (0.05<p<0.1) for 7 polymorphisms, while the others were in Hard-Weinberg equlibrium.