“marginally significant”

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

Differences are indicated as significant ( p < 0.05; different letters) and marginally significant ( p < 0.1; asterisks), following least significant difference post hoc tests.

The peak torque at the CC increased after the intervention in the rBFR (pre: 40.6 N・m [34.3-48.1], post: 44.8 N・m [37.1-74.0]; p = 0.043; r = 0.64) while a marginally significant increase was noted in the CON (pre: 42.5 N・m [35.7-47.3], post: 45.5 N・m [42.2-62.2]; p < 0.10; r = 0.64) versus no increase after the intervention in the eBFR (pre: 41.7 N・m [34.0-46.3], post: 40.3 N・m [34.3-47.2]; r = 0.00).

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.

laciniatus with interspecific neighbors in total fitness ( t 157 = 4.14, P = 0.0008), with a marginally significant difference in survival ( t 174 = 2.61, P = 0.10).

Factors that were significant ( P < 0.05) or marginally significant ( P < 0.1) on univariate analysis were assessed in multivariate analysis including the severity of aGVHD at the initiation of therapy (grade I-II versus grade III-IV), time of onset of aGVHD (hyperacute versus other), donor type, and disease status at the time of transplantation.

Poverty rate was marginally significant and negatively associated with the likelihood of pharmacies selling nonprescription syringes (OR = 0.9, p < 0.1).

However, these associations are marginally significant ( p < .10).

To determine independent predictors for MACE, a multivariate Cox regression analysis was developed with the significant predictors ( P < 0.05) and the marginally significant ones ( P < 0.10) from the univariate model. 3.

Because of the small sample size in this pilot study, we also report marginally significant results (p < .10), and are careful to interpret these results with caution.

There was a significant direct effect from global trait EI to major satisfaction (β = 0.181, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant direct effect from global trait EI to procrastination (β = –0.117, p < 0.10).

The threshold of significance was p < 0.05, but marginally significant effects ( p < 0.1) were also reported.

Marginally significant results (p < 0.1) are reported in the results, but only significant results (p < 0.05) are further discussed.

The difference was marginally significant (p < 0.1).

With increasing shrub canopy size, the relative abundance of Ascomycota significantly increased ( p = 0.001), while the relative abundance of Basidiomycota showed a decreasing trend (marginally significant, p < 0.1) (Fig. 5 a, b).

all social-level predictors, neighbourhood-level predictors, etc.) and retained in the next model when marginally significant ( P < 0·10).

Furthermore, all three predictors were marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in predicting the mixing cost, so that younger age, earlier L2 acquisition, and a more balanced use of both languages in everyday life was associated with a smaller mixing cost.

On day 173 in 2015, we detected a marginally significant positive dependence of g s and T r on soil water content ( P < 0.1; Figure 3 ), while the relationships between soil water content and A were not statistically significant ( P = 0.531; Figure 3 ).

There were marginally significant effects, at the P =.10 level, for improvement in strong agreement for beliefs about the importance of eating fruits and vegetables, and in taking prenatal vitamins, to the health of the developing baby.

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).

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

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant (tendency) at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

The difference in FEV 1 /FVC decline was marginally significant (−0.001 units/year; 95% CI, −0.003 to 2.77 × 10 −4 ; P = .101).

Moderation by gender There were marginally significant interactions between gender and the effect of partner A’s worry on partner B’s calming, t (61.47) = 1.29, p = .101, and alerting, t (69.75) = 1.35, p = .091.

However, only the total monetary productivity gains of the ETN25+MTX group compared with the placebo group were marginally significant (p=0.101).