“marginally significant”

We included those comorbidities that were marginally significant (p<0.1) in the univariate analysis to the multivariate model.

In this version we addressed the two points raised during the revision process, namely data duplication (figure 2 was eliminated, table 3 was maintained) and data display on table 3, which now depicts only significant (p < 0.05) and marginally significant (p ≤ 0.10) correlations.

Within ecosystem types or climate zones, 15 out of 20 comparisons between plants and soil bacteria/fungi were significant ( P < 0.05) or marginally significant ( P < 0.10), and these all showed greater declines for plants.

The results indicated that the pairwise difference between the infidelity and gambling conditions was marginally significant ( p < .10, gambling condition showed higher scores) for quantity of morphologically normal progressive sperm (Parameter 2) and sperm motility index (Parameter 14).

Quadratic relationships between zygomatic major activity and experienced/recognized valence were not significant, except for a marginally significant correlation between squared zygomatic major activity and experienced valence under the dynamic condition in Study 1 ( p <0.1).

In the Botanical Garden (data-subset I), it was slightly (marginally significant, p < 0.1) affected by tree age and significantly by herbivory (Table 1 ).

Differences between treatments were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

In line with H5, we observe a marginally significant interaction effect of error risk taking and perceived organizational innovation climate (β = 0.16, p < 0.1, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.32]).

Significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10) apparent Q 10 estimates were observed under both control and warming treatments in all years except 2011 (Supplementary Fig. 3 ).

In addition, exposure to Tupange's Jongo Love radio program was marginally significant (OR = 1.29; P ≤ .10).

The first model for which all AUs helped predict at least a marginally significant ( p < 0.10) variance in the dependent variable emotion/appraisal was selected as the final model.

The results demonstrated that LSSB had a significant effect on insiders’ identification with the leader (slope = 0.44, p < 0.01) and that LSSB had a marginally significant effect on outsiders’ identification with the leader (slope = 0.18, p < 0.10).

The Number of Dominant Images A marginally significant association was found between “The number of dominant images” and the two groups of families ( χ 2 = 3.68, p < 0.10).

For this analysis only, all metabolites for which the p -values were marginally significant ( p < 0.1) were selected for further study.

Age, smoking status, body mass index, and dental consultation status data that were marginally significant in bivariate analyses ( P < .1) were included as independent variables in multivariate multinomial logistic regression analyses.

Simultaneously, openness to experience demonstrated a marginally significant positive relationship with job-seeking behavior (β = 0.08, p < 0.10), consistent with this personality trait’s association with exploration and novelty-seeking.

exotic ( P = 0.016) and target region ( P = 0.072) were significant, or marginally significant ( P < 0.10), effects.

Finally, the total non-housing assets of a patient (T0ATOTN) is a marginally significant (P < 0.1) variable that has a negative correlation with the DV.

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

For all linear mixed-effect models, we performed backwards step-wise model simplification using likelihood ratio tests to obtain the minimum adequate model containing only significant terms (whereby we retained marginally significant effects, i.e., P < 0.1).

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

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

When smoking status and obesity were added (Model 6), the main effect of educational resources at 12 years of schooling remained negative and marginally significant (b = −0.017, 95% CI: −0.035, 0.002; p < 0.10), while the interaction term was attenuated and no longer statistically significant (b = −0.003, 95% CI: −0.008, 0.001). 3.2.5 Predicted differences across educational attainment levels Fig. 2 translates Models 5-6 into predicted differences in inflammation when comparing individuals educated in states at the 90th versus 10th percentile of educational resources, across levels of educational attainment (8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 years).

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).

Other relationships rarely met the P < 0.05 statistical thresholds or were marginally significant at P < 0.10 threshold, such as LDMC, major vein density, major and minor vein MST ratios ( Table 3 ). ΔAn% was significantly influenced by force-to-tear and minor vein density, while ΔEt% and Δgsw% were only correlated to force to tear ( P < 0.05 and P = 0.06, respectively).