In the next step, all variables were tested for any changes from “start” to “mid”, “mid” to “end”, or “start to end”, and those tending to have a significant trend of changing at least p < 0.1 were identified.
Excerpts
a trend towards significancep < 0.1
A trend towards significance was observed for AVH distress ( p < 0.1).
Subsequently, backward elimination of the independent variables was performed until only those with at least borderline significant ( p < 0.1) beta coefficients remained in the model.
However, it should be noted that this association was marginally significant ( p < 0.10).
a trend toward significancep < 0.10
A multivariate linear regression model was subsequently constructed using the backward stepwise selection method, initially including all variables with significance ( p < 0.05) or a trend toward significance ( p < 0.10) in the univariate analysis.
PGG-treated 7.11 ± 1.13%, p = 0.0017) and approaching significance at the proximal location at day 28 (saline-treated 4.24 ± 1.01% vs. 6.64 ± 2.28%, p = 0.10; Figure 4 B).
borderline non-significantp = 0.100
1.00 m/s, p = 0.036), and handgrip strength showed a borderline non-significant trend toward lower values ( p = 0.100).
a trend toward significancep = 0.10
A statistically significant group × time interaction was observed in the Oral Control subscale (F = 4.82, p = 0.0147), while a trend toward significance was noted in the Bulimia and Food Preoccupation subscale (F = 5.31, p = 0.10).
close to significancep < 0.10
The sum of previous POP surgeries was entered into the calculated models because it was close to significance p < 0.10 ( Table 3 ).
The number of lines of palliative chemotherapy delivered also showed a nonsignificant trend in the younger age group ( p = 0.10).
The LLTs of healthy controls and mild keratoconus patients were similar, and both were greater than severe patients; however, the difference with moderate patients was marginally significant ( p < 0.1) after adjusting for age and the male/female ratio.
In case of statistical significance ( p -value < 0.05) or indicative significance (0.05 < p -value < 0.10) for more than one case (e.g., in month 0 and in month −1) and association direction was the same (e.g., positive for both), average value was used as independent variable.
Additionally, we found a favorable trend (all p < 0.10) in vaccinated patients regarding myopericarditis (3 vs. 0 cases, p = 0.07), atrial fibrillation, and tinnitus/hearing loss.
The forest plot categorizes predictors by statistical significance using color coding: significant predictors ( p < 0.05) in blue, borderline significant (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10) in orange, and non-significant factors ( p ≥ 0.10) in red.
We also interpreted the effect of the difference as a statistical trend on level (0.05 < p < 0.10), which was recommended in the literature of biomedical sciences [ 54 ]. 3.
a trend towards significancep = 0.1
ONL thickness was associated with an increase in PWS with 0.060 dB/μm at an eccentricity of 5.2° ( p < 0.001), while EZ thickness only showed a trend towards significance (0.017 dB/μm at an eccentricity of 5.2°; p = 0.1).
The models were refitted with possible confounders (that were borderline significant predictors ( p -value < 0.1) of measurement magnitude in univariate models) to adjust for the effect of these variables. 3.
borderline significancep < 0.10
The analysis proceeded in a stepwise manner, beginning with age- and sex-adjusted univariate regression models for each inflammatory parameter, followed by a multivariable model including biomarkers that demonstrated at least borderline significance ( p < 0.10) in univariate testing.
approached significancep = 0.1
The expression levels of miR-145 and miR-155 increased as the risk increased, however, this only approached significance ( p = 0.1 and p = 0.115, respectively). 3.5.
Multivariate analysis was performed using the backward stepwise method after including all variables with significant or near-significant association ( p ≤ 0.10) at either log-rank or univariate analysis by Cox proportional hazard method.
Specifically, twelve of the variables identified via χ 2 analysis in Table 2 with significant p -values ( p ≤ 0.05) or p -values that were approaching significance (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1) were entered into the logistic regression model.
However, due to small sample size at hand, we also reported marginally significant effects with p < 0.1.
A near-significant difference was observed on the CBCL rule-breaking subscale, with boys showing slightly higher scores than girls (4.26 vs. 3.10, respectively ~ p < 0.10).
showed a trendp < 0.10
Only explanatory and confounding variables that showed a trend toward an association (e.g., p < 0.10) with the outcome of interest in the univariate analysis were included in the multiple regression analysis.
The alpha criterion level was set at 0.05 for all statistical analyses, but we also interpreted the effect of the difference as a statistical trend on level (0.05 < p < 0.1), which is recommended in the literature of biomedical sciences [ 82 ]. 3.