Excerpts

Marginal significance was determined by p < 0.10.

In all cases, the significance level was set at p < 0.05, and the marginal significance was set at p < 0.1.

In contrast, P1NP showed a trend for session ( p = 0.10), without any effect for group ( p = 0.95) or the group × session interaction ( p = 0.62).

For the experimental group, there was only one marginally significant relationship between AB index and sexual excitation score (SES, r = −0.48, p < 0.10).

p < 0.01 was interpreted as highly significant and p < 0.10 was interpreted as a trend.

For items showing a trend toward significance ( p < 0.10) in the Friedman test, post hoc comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Holm correction. 3.

Significance was set at p < 0.05, and marginal significance was set at p < 0.10.

Some other factors were found to be marginally significant in predicting the odds of parental license to independent non-school travel (0.05 ≤ p < 0.1), including the factor variable for neighborhood support and positive peer influences (marginally positive) and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch and the presence of walking/biking trails in the neighborhood (marginally negative).

The Bonferroni comparison between children of indulgent and uninvolved mothers was marginally significant ( p = 0.10).

In both multivariate and two-level logistic regression models ( Figure 5 and Table S7 ), the cumulative number of indicators for residential traffic and bedroom ventilation habit had nearly significant interaction effects on childhood pneumonia ( p -value < 0.1).

A Moran’s I test also indicated significant spatial autocorrelation ( p = 0.001) in the rates for TROs and marginal significance for VSOs ( p = 0.10).

However, personal opioid use was close to significance, with lower odds of being in the “High Stigma/High Punitive Policy” class ( p = 0.10), which would be expected.

In contrast, only EC and MDNN had marginally significant correlations with SOC ( p < 0.1) in the YNNR site.

This study observed that, at a marginally significant level ( p < 0.1), older adults exhibited better glycemic control, potentially due to a lower degree of insulin resistance and higher participation/engagement in programs [ 2 ].

control group) and daily smoking status provided qualified support for Hypothesis 2, showing that for daily smokers, exposure to experimental condition affected policy support more considerably, with a marginally significant interaction effect ( F (1, 1124) = 2.83, p < 0.10).

Marginally significant improvements were also observed in the subscales of self-kindness (t(132) = 1.66, p = 0.10, d = 0.14) and overidentification (t(132) = 1.88, p = 0.06, d = 0.16).

Although it was not significant at alpha = 0.05 for Hispanic children speaking Spanish, the association between the social environment and physical activity was marginally significant and positive for Hispanic children speaking Spanish in comparison to non-Hispanic White children (b = 0.92, p < 0.10).

However, their effects were marginally significant at p < 0.10, explaining why Model 1 was significant.

In the multivariable Poisson model, the variables that showed association in the univariate analysis were included, even those that showed marginal significance ( p < 0.10).

The average total effect was positive and marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

The intrinsic and integrated pathways were, however, borderline significant (at p < 0.10) and given the high levels of covariance between the factors, the non-significance of the pathways is likely due to suppressed covariance [ 47 ].

In the sediment, as the water velocity increased, the OTUs showed a decreasing trend ( p < 0.1), and the mean numbers were 2568 in the SC, 2352 in the SVC, and 2099 in the FVC, respectively.

The longitudinal association between extraversion and sick leave days was marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

Mean Frontal Alpha Power (AF3, F3/AF4, F4) The three-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed that for the alpha frontal oscillation, there was a marginally significant interaction between the factors Green cover, Floor, and Hemisphere F (4,112) = 1.98, p = 0.10, η2 = 0.002.

Furthermore, the interaction of parental monitoring and shyness showed marginally significant effects on children’s PMPU (β = 0.063, p < 0.10).