Excerpts

Regarding the association of the contextual variables with the presence of depressive symptoms, on comparing tertiles 3 versus 1, the association of socioeconomic deprivation index was marginally significant at the locality level (OR = 1.28; p<0.10), and significant at the municipality level (OR = 1.16, p<0.01).

Effects were considered significant when P ≤ 0.05 and tendency towards significance at 0.05 < P < 0.10.

Variables that reached borderline significance (p<0.1) in the univariate analysis were considered for inclusion into the multivariate models.

Triglycerides, total cholesterol and HDL Cholesterol were close to the level of significance for D allele (p<0.10).

Individuals with children have the same effect size of 2.4 percentage points regardless of how low income their households are ( Table 2 center column), although precision declines to marginal significance (p<0.10) for these estimates.

None of the groups showed a statistically significant association with the presence of fruits and only a marginally significant ( P < 0.10) interaction between distance to the nearest water and presence of fruits was found for medium frugivores ( Fig 3 , Table 2 ).

Type III sums of squares were used in all analyses (‘car’ package) to account for unequal numbers of observations among treatment groups, and effects were considered significant if P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant if P ≤ 0.10.

In case the interaction between genotype and treatment was significant or borderline significant (P<0.1), the differences were evaluated in more detail by separately analyzing the effects of genotype and treatment using Bonferroni-corrected two-sided unpaired t-tests.

Our borderline significant results (0.05<p-value<0.10) in all likelihood are due to low statistical power.

The correlations with maternal negativity were in the expected direction —risk was uncorrelated with negativity for the 7-absent mothers and higher risk was correlated with stronger negativity for the 7-present mothers—but this was only a marginally significant effect ( p <.10).

We also included any factors which were marginally significant (0.05 <p-value<0.10), which we considered as potential meaningful risk factors.

Owing the limited power of certain analyses, which are based on small sample sizes, we also report ‘marginally significant’ values (0.05< p <0.10) and interpret them to indicative inconclusive results (i.e., we can neither reject nor accept the null hypothesis).

All tests were two-tailed with the significance level set at p ≤.05 and the level of borderline significance set at p ≤.10.

The difference between group B and group D is significant on day 1 (p <0.05) and nearly significant on day 7 and day 14 (p < 0.1).

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.

When these two groups were compared, the age effect on the adaptive shifts was only marginally significant, -41.8° vs. −22.5°, F (1,18) = 3.9, p <.1.

After incorporating interactions between bone lead and genotypes into the models, we found that 5 and 4 polymorphisms reached statistical significance (p<0.05) and borderline significance (p<0.1), respectively, when genotypes were modeled as additive ( Table 3 ).

The overall regression models were significant in eight cases and showed a trend ( p <.10) towards significance in another two cases.

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.

However, comparisons of ΔAIC and R 2 indicated that the simpler MAM containing a linear size effect had substantially greater support than the MAM including a marginally significant non-linear response of basal area growth with tree size (DBH 2 : L = 2.71, P = 0.10; ΔAIC for the MAM with a non-linear size effect was only 0.7 points lower than for the model with a linear size effect; Table 2 ).

All effects were reported as statistically significant if p ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant if p ≤ 0.10.

The expected threefold interaction of Group × Mood Induction × Time just failed to reach significance ( F [6,114] = 1.84, p = .10, η2 part = .09).

Individual species of non-polar lipids that displayed statistically significant (p<0.05) and marginally significant (p<0.10) changes in quantities were shown in Figure 3B–C .

ether/plasmalogen PCs or unsaturated PCs, were found in lower level in the severe compared to the moderate category of patients with marginal significance (p<0.10).

There was also a marginally significant ( p <.10) interaction between race and sex in the transition from C 1 to A .