Excerpts

We find a weakly significant general effect of relative savings ( F (1, 66) = 2.20, p < .10) on donations.

Subjectively, those with “borderline significance” (p<0.10) were included.

Aside from one coefficient, marginally significant at the (p<0.1) level, there appears to be no systematic response to children victims.

Among individual observations, marginally significant group by load interactions ( p <0.1, FDR corrected) were found for C net and E local,net at most of the observations.

We use p value <0.05 as our criteria for a statistically significant result, however we still highlight results that are marginally non-significant (p<0.10) as potentially meaningful to understanding risk factors for violence perpetration.

The main effect of pre-allocation was nonsignificant, F (1,21) = 0.57, MSE = 16168.03, p = .460, and the three-way interaction between object type, compatibility, and pre-allocation was marginally significant, F (1,21) = 3.01, MSE = 570.64, p < .1.

Statistical significance levels were set at p < 0.05, and marginal significance p < 0.1 [ 40 ].

A trend towards significance (T) was considered at 0.05 < P <0.1.

Conversely, cartilage is only statistically significant in the MCID-based model, and while borderline significant (p<0.10) in the MPCI-based model, there it presents less than half the added risk seen in the MCID-based model.

Both groups had increases in percent weight bearing during the period of forced activity restriction, with the difference between the two groups nearing significance (P = 0.10).

In mothers, there was a small trend for CMS to correlate positively with child age ( r = .20, p < .10), perhaps reflecting increasing knowledge about the child’s internal mental states and thus increased certainty about them.

We find that the inclusion of this indicator diminishes the magnitude and statistical significance of the coefficient related to transitory food insecurity for numeracy, although it remains marginally statistically significant and relatively large (p<0.1).

While the average amount taken per game is 301.8 Cents in wave 1 (remember that the maximum amount that could be taken is 500 Cents per game), this amount significantly increases to 425.4 in wave 2, and significantly increases further to 496.4 in wave 3 (differences are labeled as significant if p < 0.050 and are labeled as weakly significant if 0.050 ≤ p < 0.100).

An increased trend for inter-group connectivities was found for groups A; this increase is marginally significant (p<0.1) and could be interpreted as increased communicative activity within the higher-order executive control group that was induced by the cognitive load of deception.

Concerning the differences in transitions between land uses in the four mosaics types, only two transition types showed significant differences ( P <0.05), whereas two more were marginally significant ( P <0.10).

Factors that demonstrated a moderately significant statistical relationship in the univariate analysis ( P <.1) were entered by forward selection in a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model [19] .

As indicated by the higher likelihood scores of model M2a ( Table S3 ), these tests provide significant evidence of adaptive evolution within ESAGs 4, 5, 6, and 7, and are nearly significant (p<0.1) for ESAG1 and ESAG3b .

In addition, subjects walked with significantly greater step width variability (F (1,85) = 19.12, η 2 = 0.18, p <0.01) and showed a trend of walking with greater step time variability (F (1,85) = 2.81, p = 0.10) during POST than during PRE.

Data analysis was based on statistical significance (as well as those approaching significance (0.05<p<0.10).

Yet the effect for ghost authors is not significant at the conventional p < 0.05 level but only marginally significant at p < 0.1.

The path from violent punishment to effortful control was marginally significant and negative ( β = –.12, SE = .06, p < .10), whereas the path to negative affectivity was marginally significant and positive ( β = .15, SE = .08, p < .10).

Two genes, DAXX and PLK3, were successfully replicated across all the 3 replication cohorts, with significant (p <0.05) or marginally significant (p <0.10) p values as well as the same direction of regulation as in our discovery cohort ( Table 3 ).

P-values in bold with asterisks highlighting differences that were significant (p≤0.05) and marginally significant (p<0.10).

The outcome of the “more than (or equal to) one year” group showed a nearly significant difference, which favored EAH (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.03, p = 0.10); therefore, should the number of patients increase, EAH might have the advantage of improving the patency rate.

Potential correlates that remained marginally statistically significant (p<0.10) from the univariable analyses were entered in final models including all variables and covariates.