“marginally significant”

In contrast, the effect of CACS-2 was statistically insignificant ( b = 0.027, p > 0.1), and CACS-8 exhibited only a marginally significant, weak effect ( b = 0.184, p < 0.1).

In our description of results the associations are considered marginally significant if p <0.1 or significant if p <0.05.

Finally, explanatory variables found to be marginally significant (p<0.10) in bivariate analyses were tested in multivariable linear regression Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) models with cluster-robust SEs to account for clustering.

S4 A , Supplementary Material online). When a test for general population differentiation, that is, irrespective of malaria, was applied using the X T X statistic described by Gunther and Coop (2013) , significant ( P < 0.05) signals were found for SNPs rs1128127 in the DERL3 gene and rs84833095 in the TLR1 gene, and marginally significant signals ( P < 0.10) were found for SNPs rs2706384 in the IRF1 gene and rs1803632 in the GBP7 gene ( supplementary fig.

Rank 1 (β=.11, P <.1) and rank 2 (β=.11, P <.1) were marginally significant ( P <.1) because the factors were not significant at the level of 0.05 but were significant at the level of 0.1.

For all the significant ( P < 0.05) and marginally significant ( P < 0.10) year/compartments/growth stage combinations, pairwise comparisons of the genotypes was performed (function “pairwiseAdonis”) [ 49 ].

The expression of all five genes in cluster 1 showed a significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10) negative correlation with the bicarbonate concentration, whereas none of the other gene expression patterns were correlated with bicarbonate ( Figure 5 ; Table 2 ).

Among all the phenotypes, the relative abundance of the anaerobic phenotype showed a significant positive relationship with salinity, and the relative abundance of the stress-tolerant phenotype showed a marginally significant ( P < 0.1) positive relationship with salinity, while the relative abundance of facultative anaerobic and biofilm-forming phenotypes displayed a significantly negative relationship with salinity ( Fig. 4 ).

No demographic or behavioral factor had a statistically significant (Fisher’s 2-sided exact p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.1) association with mortality.

2b ; site 64 was marginally significant at P < 0.10) were found to be under positive selection in the inclusive data (Fig. 3b ), with particular amino acid variable within species but shared between alleles of different species.

In Model I, the mediation effect was not significant (B = 0.004, t = 0.888), while in Model II, the mediation effect was marginally significant (B = 0.012, t = 1.596, p < 0.10).

The interactions between ethnicity and the proportion of ethnic minorities in classes of .25–.50 were marginally significant (.25, p < .10).

As expected, the judges rated participants in the high-power group as significantly more powerful ( M = 4.78, SD = 1.69) than those in the low-power group [ M = 2.17, SD = 1.38, t (68) = 7.06, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.72] and marginally significant more power than those in the control group [ M = 4.18, SD = 1.02, t (62) = 1.68, p = 0.10, Cohen’s d = 0.43].

When that parish was removed from the analysis, there was a marginally significant ( p > 0.10) difference in the group education offerings in CE parishes as compared with SD churches (63 vs 36 %).

The overall multivariate test for a time effect on the 3 content dependent variables, based on Wilks’ criteria, was marginally significant, F(3, 28)=2.67, p<0.10, partial η 2 =0.22.

The same analysis with accuracy as dependent variable revealed a main effect of Location ( F = 5.2, p < 0.05; actual more accurate than mirror), a marginally significant effect of Condition ( F = 4.5, p < 0.1; spatiotopic more accurate than retinotopic) and no interaction between Location and Condition ( F < 1).

Their bias index, displayed in Figure 3 D, appears larger than the control group's at all angles and was marginally significant ( F (1, 28) = 2.84, p = 0.10, η p 2 = 0.09).

After control for general level of anxiety and depression, this relationship became weaker but marginally significant (β=.32, p<.10, ΔR 2 =8.4%).

After logistic regression, 3 “true or false”-response questions related to history of depression in self and family history appeared marginally significant (logistic regression, FDR-corrected p < 0.1), with a self-reported “true” response to a “family history of depression” showing a marginal association with constipation (logistic regression, FDR-corrected <0.1), a self-reported “true” response to a “sibling history of depression” showing a significant association with diarrhea (logistic regression, FDR-corrected <0.05), and a self-reported “true” response to “recent ailments in self-history of depression” showing a marginal association with low-normal BMF (logistic regression, FDR-corrected <0.1).

In contrast, a marginally significant interaction between type and ambiguity was observed in medial parietal cortex, F 1,14 = 3.03, P < 0.10, d = 0.47, such that the region responded more during unambiguous than ambiguous inferences about beliefs but more during ambiguous than unambiguous inferences about preferences; however, neither the main effect of ambiguity ( P > 0.45) nor the main effect of content ( P > 0.76) approached significance in this region.

Although marginally significant ( p < 0.10), the effect is directional only and should be interpreted cautiously ( Pritschet et al., 2016 ).

Marginally significant differences (.05 > P < .10) were seen in the period of SCCA diagnosis in both men and women, where those diagnosed in the most recent period (2008-2012) had a lower risk of death than their counterparts diagnosed in the initial study period (2000-2007) (RER men , 0.48, 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.01; RER women , 0.68, 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.03).

6 Q1, Q2, and Q3: When looking at the coefficient of risk aversion, there is a differential effect of time pressure by gender as a function of fWHR in the 8 s time pressure condition (β 6 is 0.084 with p < 0.05 while β 7 is −0.158 and marginally significant with p < 0.1 in Estimation 1).

Low rejection and dysfunctional family functioning only showed marginally significant ( p < 0.10) effects on non-delinquents and serious delinquents.

If a Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was at least marginally significant (p≤0.10), we used the more robust Welch two-sample t -test instead.