“only marginally significant”

However, the large standard error in 1990 makes the Wald test for the difference only marginally significant (p < .10) (Census Bureau privacy rules prevent disclosure of the actual coefficients).

F2-isoprostane concentrations were significantly negatively correlated with telomere length in the combined sample (F = 4.78, p<0.01, controlling for age and sex), but this relationship was only marginally significant in the separate depressed (F = 2.59, p<0.10) and control groups (F = 2.31, p = 0.13) due to low statistical power.

The results presented in Table 5 suggest that individuals feeling endangered by COVID-19 were about 25% more likely to comply with face-covering measures, but this estimate is only marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

However, this was only marginally significant ( P ≤ 0.1).

Qualitatively similar patterns in confidence hold for the comparison of the High Load – Easy and High Load – Hard conditions, although in this case the Accuracy x WM Demand interaction was only marginally significant [F(1,49) = 2.75, P = 0.1].

Meanwhile, the effect of R&D investment on firm value is only marginally significant (Model 4, coefficient: 0.124, p < 0.1).

Spring snow addition had increased soil moisture by 6.4% in 2011 ( P = 0.04), 9.2% in 2012 ( P < 0.001), while the increase was only marginally significant in 2013 (by 3.0%, P = 0.10) ( Fig. 2d–f , Table 1 ).

Indeed, in the current study, the main effect of priming was only marginally significant ( p = 0.10), and it was only by covarying individual sensitivity that the manipulation effect reached significance.

While the Region × Threat Certainty interaction was only marginally significant ( p = 0.10), focal comparisons indicated that that the Ce showed an indiscriminate pattern of reactivity, with statistically indistinguishable levels of heightened activation during the anticipation of certain and uncertain threat.

The estimates of the rural–urban gap and the increase in pain prevalence in suburban areas over time persisted, although the latter estimate was only marginally significant (PR: 1.08, 95 % CI: 1.00, 1.17; p < 0.10).

grandis showed an opposite trend, although only marginally significant ( P < 0.1; Fig. 5 ).

The interaction between treatment with organ and epiphytic environment, however, was only marginally significant (pseudo- F = 1.74; P < 0.1).

Although only marginally significant with p < 0.1, the use of applications other than social media had a positive effect on the task success.

Conservation) was only marginally significant ( p < 0.1, t = 1.7).

In the study conducted by de Campora and colleagues [ 76 ], the association between maternal mentalization (assessed during pregnancy) and children’s BMI (at 3 years of age) was only marginally significant (r = −2.96; p < 0.10).

When all four perceived discrimination variables were entered simultaneously (combined model), the OR for never versus rare nonmedical everyday discrimination became only marginally significant (OR = .79, p < .10).

In primigravidae, women without placental infection presented with higher IgG3 levels for the three "antibody variables" at enrolment, at delivery, and variation between enrolment and delivery (the difference at enrolment was only marginally significant, p < 0.1, probably due to a lack of power resulting from the small sample size), as compared to women with placental infection.

Further model tests showed that the motivational predictors ‘meat’ and ‘peace’ were not statistically significant, whilst the predictor ‘challenge’ was only marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

There is weak evidence of a violation of the common trends assumption in Missouri for visits per 10,000 beneficiaries, but the coefficient on the linear time trend in Missouri is only marginally significant ( p < 0.10). 5.3 Robustness checks To examine the robustness of the cohort and quarter specific ATTs from the Wooldridge ( 2021 ) estimator, we also estimated a specification using the Callaway and Sant’Anna ( 2021 ) difference‐in‐differences estimator using doubly robust estimation as specified in Callaway and Sant’Anna ( 2021 ) and Sant’Anna and Zhao ( 2020 ).

For the gross motor domain, there was a negative effect of barium (−0.89) and a positive effect of strontium (0.76), albeit both effects were only marginally significant, with p -values < 0.1.

Although the % incidence was 26% in the WT mice and only 10% in the KO mice, these differences were only marginally significant (p ≤ 0.1).

The interaction of PRONOUN*INFLECTION*GROUP was only marginally significant ( F (1,37)=2.85, p =0.1).

Model 5 and Model 6 in Table 3 suggested that the effect of JI on task proactivity was only marginally significant ( β = −0.095, p < 0.1); the effect of obsessive (harmonious) passion on task proactivity was significant ( β = 0. 428, p < 0.001; β = 0.286, p < 0.001).

However, the results were only marginally significant ( P < 0.1) in the 5-year follow-up, and no association was found in the 22-year follow-up.

Though being only marginally significant (0.05 < P < 0.10), subjects with FAO were older and had lower BMI than those without FAO.