“marginal significance”

Overall differences in Likert-type data were tested by a multivariable analysis of variance (MANOVA) for all questions with marginal significance ( p -value < 0.1) at the individual question level.

Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05, with marginal significance considered at 0.05 < p ≤ 0.1.

Statistical significance was determined at p <.05 and marginal significance at p <.10.

Estrogen receptor-positive status (mean cost USD 6548.34, 95% CI 2094.05–11,002.63 compared to estrogen receptor-negative status) showed marginal significance, p -value < 0.1.

The results are presented as the incidence rate ratio (IRR), with the level of significance set at p < 0.05 and the marginal significance set at p < 0.10 because of the small sample size.

Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05; marginal significance was set at p < 0.10.

This difference attained statistical significance compared to internal medicine ( P < .04) and anesthesia ( P < .04), and marginal significance compared to emergency medicine ( P < .10).

Although differences between ID and CD regarding study outcomes mostly attained only marginal significance (p < 0.1) and effect sizes were rather small, obtained results are plausible with regard to the implemented changes in work design and consistent with one another.

Variables showing marginal significance (p < 0.10) included newly developed formulations (Q9) (OR = 0.36, p = 0.067) and satisfaction with the visual materials (Q11) (OR = 3.00, p = 0.095).

At one standard deviation below the mean of perceived atmosphere, the change between T1 and T2 is negative for the psychological and the physical domains (estimate = -.106, p = .009 and estimate = -.074, p = .10; marginal significance), but not for the social and the environmental domains (estimate = -.141, p = .11 and estimate -.009, p = .867, respectively) (Fig. 2 ).

Furthermore, the association between ICP and mRS was weak and only reached marginal significance ( p < 0.10).

Results at the p < .05 level are reported as statistically significant, while marginal significance is assigned to those at the p < .10 [ 39 ].

The level of statistical marginal significance was set at 0.05 < p < 0.10, as described in [ 53 ]. 3.

Statistical significance was taken to be P < 0.05 and marginal significance as 0.05 ≤ P < 0.1 in all analyses.

Initial screening of potential predictors was conducted through univariate logistic regression, with variables demonstrating marginal significance ( P < 0.1) subsequently incorporated into multivariate logistic regression modeling.

Third, we created multivariable models adjusted for factors with statistical significance ( p < 0.050) or marginal significance (0.050 ≤ p < 0.100) in comparison analyses, in addition to sex, age, and body mass index.

Additionally, age ( p = 0.057), INR ( p = 0.080), infection ( p = 0.088), and hepatic encephalopathy ( p = 0.090) demonstrated trends toward marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.10), likely reflecting the limited sample size and reduced statistical power.

To further investigate which of the significant clusters observed during the validation of the German EmpaToM task replicated in the English EmpaToM version, ROI analyses (thresholded at p = .05 uncorrected) were conducted for each of the clusters in each of the analyses (with significance defined as FWE p < .05 and marginal significance defined as FWE p < .10 corrected for the size of the original cluster). 3.

A Moran’s I test also indicated significant spatial autocorrelation ( p = 0.001) in the rates for TROs and marginal significance for VSOs ( p = 0.10).

Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05; marginal significance was defined as p<0.10.

For variables with marginal significance (0.05 < P < 0.1) in multivariate analysis (i.e., comorbidity count ≥2 types, operative time >180 min), we retained them in the final model based on two criteria: (1) clinical plausibility—previous studies have confirmed that multimorbidity (≥2 comorbidities) increases physiological stress in elderl

The negative association between log(uMMA) and eGFR was observed with marginal significance in both the 2001 sample (b = −2.13, p = 0.10) and the 2003 sample (b = −4.48, p = 0.06).

We defined statistical significance at p<0.05 and marginal significance at p<0.10.

At T1, the total aboveground plant dry mass was influenced by the irrigation treatment, being significantly lower in cd compared to ctr plants and slightly higher (marginal significance, p < 0.1) in cd compared to pd plants (Fig. 2A , Table 2 ).

Marginal significance was set at P ≤ .10 to detect differences that may be clinically relevant and warrant further analysis in future studies with larger sample sizes.