“close to significance”

Although E-V441I was considered a neutral selection, its p -value of 0.194 is close to significance ( p ≤ 0.1) for diversifying selection.

Variables that achieved statistical significance (p < 0.05) or were close to significance (p < 0.10) in the univariate analysis were examined in a multivariate analysis.

Twenty-five triglycerides were significantly elevated in the WT mice ( p < 0.05) but not the PASK −/− mice in response to HFHS diet, 10 others are close to significance ( p < 0.1).

Variables, including multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, were those that achieved statistical significance ( P < 0.05) or that were close to significance ( P < 0.1) in the univariable analysis.

P-values close to significance (p≤0.1) were defined as tendency.

To determine whether the relationship between delays and outcomes was independent of these factors, all variables significant or close to significance ( P < 0.1) in univariate analysis were included in a multivariable model.

Variables deemed close to significance ( P < .10) were then examined under generalized linear models (GLMs) and evaluated for statistical significance ( P < .05).

Although p -values were above 0.05 for the hazard analysis results, they were so close to significance ( p < 0.1) that we argue they are still indicative of a trend and worthy of discussion.

In addition, when we consider the biomarkers with responses close to significance (0.05 < p < 0.10), the response to pollutants of one more biomarker presented differences between the high and low pollution groups during periods with good access to sea ice, whereas during the period with low access to sea ice, this was observed in four more biomarkers (Table 2 ).

For the inferential analysis, p < .05 was considered significant and p < .01 highly significant, while p < .10 was considered to indicate a tendency to significance or close to significance (< 10%).

Variables that achieved statistical significance ( p < 0.05) or those close to significance ( p < 0.1) by univariate analysis were subsequently included in the multivariate analysis.

Over the study period, the river runoff of six river basins decreased with marginal significance (0.05 < P < 0.10, which is a confidence level close to significance) from 1982 to 2015, except for the Fen river basin ( P = 0.65) ( Pritschet et al., 2016 ) ( Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure 2 ).

The most significant (or close to significance, p < 0.1) variables were identified.

The sum of previous POP surgeries was entered into the calculated models because it was close to significance p < 0.10 ( Table 3 ).

Multivariate analysis results Generalized linear regression model analysis was performed with a normal probability distribution and identity link function to determine the independent variables associated with the level of moral sensitivity of nurses by using the variables found to be statistically significant ( p < 0.05) or close to significance ( p < 0.1) in single-variable analysis results.

However, of the 48 analyzed outcome variables, only eight are statistically significant ( p < 0.05) and three are close to significance (0.05 < p < 0.10).

In logistic regression model, variables were included in the multivariable analysis when they achieved statistical significance ( p < 0.05) or were close to significance ( p < 0.1) in the univariate analysis.

As can be seen, the entropy values in all brain regions are higher in the task state than in the rest state, and their P-values are close to significance (P < 0.1).

The difference was close to significance (p < 0.1).

Variables that achieved statistical significance ( P < 0.05) or those that were close to significance ( P < 0.1) by univariate analysis were subsequently included in the multivariate analysis.

The multivariate analysis included the factors that in the previous univariate analysis were associated with thrombotic events significantly or close to significance (p-value <0.1).

For the multivariable analysis, we considered variables whose p -values were significant or close to significance ( p ≤ 0.1) in the univariable test.

The difference from zero of both values was close to significance ( t (19) = -1.71, p = 0.10, d = 0.38 and t (19) = -1.71, p = 0.06, d = 0.45, respectively, Fig. 2a ).

After studying the significance of relevant baseline covariates in a univariate model, the variables that were significant or close to significance ( P < 0.10) were included in the fully adjusted model.

We further indicated trends that were close to significance, where p ≤ 0.1.