“a significant trend”

Nonetheless, when grouping the 6 patients in Fig 4C , the entropy reductions of C1 were not followed by a functional connectivity decrease, in contrast to C0, where the decrease showed a significant trend ( P < 0.1, Wilcoxon test).

Variables with a significant trend ( p < 0.1) in the univariate logistic analysis were included in the multivariable logistic model and backward eliminated to a significance level of 0.05.

On multivariate analysis using a logistic model, no-interruption fasting was significantly more frequent in patients with type 2 diabetes (OR = 1.969 [1.043–3.716]; p =0.036) and among male patients (OR = 1.677 [1.115–2.522]; p =0.013), with a significant trend for patients living in urban areas compared to those living in rural areas (OR=1.73 [0.898–3.332]; p =0.10), for patients with high level of education (university) compared those not in school or primary level (OR=1.756 [0.998–3.089]; p =0.05), and also for patients treated with insulin analogs compared with patients who did not receive it (OR = 1.442 [0.960–2.167]; p =0.07).

Specifically, for roots <1 mm in diameter, there was a significant positive relationship in 2020 ( P < 0.05) and positive trends in 2019 ( P < 0.10) while for roots <2 mm in diameter, there was only a significant trend in 2021 ( P < 0.10).

When a significant trend ( p < 0.1) was observed, planned pair-wise comparisons were performed in a similar manner to explore emotional change effects.

We also found a significant trend between the mean scores of the SFA and Control groups in the post-2 ( Figure 3B , p < 0.10).

Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05, and a significant trend defined as p < 0.1.

To reduce the complexity of this final model, only variables indicative of a significant trend in Model 2 ( P < .1) remained in Model 3 [34] .

Data are expressed as means ± SEM and significance was set to p < 0.05, while a significant trend was considered when 0.05 > p < 0.1.

A significant trend was noted when 0.05 ≥ p > 0.10.

The ANCOVA for diabetes-specific distress (PAID) showed a significant trend, F (3, 195) = 2.24, p < .10.

The LF/HF ratio of the Mi group showed a significant trend on day 1 compared with that on day 10 ( P <.1) and on day 5 compared with that on day 10 ( P <.05).

The alpha wave content of the Mi group showed a significant trend in the CE1 and CE2 tasks in the After condition ( p < .1).

p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference, 0.05 < p < 0.10 indicates a significant trend, and p > 0.10 indicates no meaningful difference. 3.

All data are presented as the estimated marginal means and standard error of the means (EM means ± SEM), and significance was considered at P < 0.05, with a significant trend defined at 0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10.

Variables with a significant trend ( p < 0.1) in the univariate analysis, were included in the multivariate forward logistic regression analysis.

A significant trend (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10) was also observed between the MLG_7820 and Bacitracin groups and between the P561 and P537 groups, where the birds from MLG_7820 and P537 had higher lesion scores, respectively.

However, we did find a significant trend in the frequency of physical contact (Telenoid > Face, t = −2.06, p < 0.10; Figures 3 , 4 ).

Results were considered highly statistically significant at P < 0.01, statistically significant at P < 0.05, and having a significant trend when 0.05 < P < 0.10.

For the X-coordinate, there was a significant trend (p < 0.1) for HC and MDD patients (Table S2).

A univariate regression analysis was then used to correlate factors indicating a significant trend ( p < 0.1) between ICH and non-ICH cohorts (“lrm” function in R, “rms”-package) [ 23 ].

A single factor analysis was performed for each observation index, and variables with statistical significance or no statistical significance but with a significant trend ( P < 0.1) were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis model, test level α = 0.05.

However, for 41% of pixels, the direction of the temporal trend in interannual variation in greenup onset was opposite to that in spring temperature; 6% of these pixels exhibited a significant trend (P < 0.1, Fig. 4 c).

ATJ (mean = 22.42 °C) was between 20.50 °C to 24.50 °C, with a relatively small fluctuation range (CV 3 = 2.33%); DIF (mean = 9.77 °C) ranged from 8 °C to 11 °C, with a large fluctuation range (CV 4 = 3.85%); however, neither of them showed a significant trend ( P > 0.1).

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a significant change in erectile function ( P < 0.05; r = –0.65) and a significant trend in intercourse satisfaction ( P < 0.10; r = –0.47) and overall satisfaction ( P < .10; r = –0.47).