“marginal significance”

Statistical significance was indicated if P < 0.05 and marginal significance if 0.05 ≤ P < 0.10.

Effects that approached either significance ( p ≤ 0.05) or marginal significance ( p ≤ 0.10) are reported in the Results Section.

And, marginal significance was observed between 7/68 trans -eSNPs and susceptibility to LN (0.05 < P < 0.1), including rs712377 on SLC25A21 (OR = 1.283, 95% CI = 0.984 to 1.671, P = 0.065), rs1391438 on TET2 (OR = 1.266, 95% CI = 0.978 to 1.638, P = 0.073), rs10878953 on CPSF6 (OR = 1.268, 95% CI = 0.977 to 1.647, P = 0.075), rs7529592 on AKNAD1 (OR = 0.701, 95% CI = 0.463 to 1.062, P = 0.094), rs155098 on ITGA4 (OR = 1.264, 95% CI = 0.960 to 1.665, P = 0.095), rs7751485 on CDKAL1 (OR = 1.286, 95% CI = 0.975 to 1.698, P = 0.096), and rs7081173 on LINP (OR = 1.245, 95% CI = 0.962 to 1.611, P = 0.096).

Statistical analysis confirmed a significant preference for LA over HA in Korean, with marginal significance in GPT-3.5-turbo (z = −1.63, p = 0.10).

Data analysis Unless noted otherwise, the significance level was p < 0.05, and marginal significance corresponded to 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10 throughout the paper.

However, cases of non-GCB type disease, as defined by the Tally algorithm, exhibited worse PFS with marginal significance ( P <0.1).

Data concerning T-anxiety evidenced a statistically marginal significance ( p = 0.10), which was significant under one-tail criteria.

Significance is reported at the P < 0.05 level; however, we also discuss results showing marginal significance (0.05 < P < 0.1) following recommendations for studies in conservation science ( Fidler et al. , 2006 ; Field et al. , 2004 ).

The significance levels were set at p < 0.05, and the marginal significance levels were set at 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1.

The incidence of postoperative complication was higher in the lower extremity group but with marginal significance (0% vs 36.3%, P = 0.1).

the ECIC and CNIC) failed to reach statistical significance ( Figure 8 ), we found no evidence for group-wise regional differences within the inferior colliculus: Tests for both the ECIC and CNIC regions reached marginal significance (for each region, F [2,17] >2.73; P<0.10), and showed a similar between-group pattern of manganese uptake ( Figure 8 i.e. control<salicylate; noise≈salicylate).

Multivariate logistic analysis was subsequently performed to determine the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the use of Twitter and Facebook and engagement with NCIC content on Twitter and Facebook after adjusting for variables that achieved marginal significance (p< 0.1) in the univariate analysis.

We observed non-significant time trends of prevalence in both overall and stratified populations (linear, quadratic, cubic trends: all P > 0.05) despite of some marginal significance (0.05< P <0.1).

Our results about RFI shows that four studies with a marginal significance ( P = 0.10, I 2 = 0%) recorded RFI, which means that UTI treatment could protect renal function in CPB patients, this finding is consistent with a retrospective study [ 52 ]. previous studies [ 53 , 54 ] proved that the systematic inflammatory response syndrome in CPB plays a vital role in the development of RFI, and other studies had found a correlation between UTI treatment and multiple organ function protection [ 55 ].

Additionally, the interaction term reached a marginal significance level (β = 0.063, p < 0.1), and the model’s explanatory power increased to R 2 = 0.264, with a change in R 2 of 0.004.

The gap between the exposed group and control group was also negative among people born between 1923 and 1940 (who were aged 19–36 at the beginning of the famine), with a marginal significance level ( p < 0.1).

We then examined multiple linear regression models to determine whether race was associated with HbA 1c level after adjustment for variables that were found to differ by race in the bivariate analyses at a P value of at least marginal significance ( P < 0.10).

Furthermore, increased functional connectivity with a marginal significance (t=3.84 P<0.1) was noticed for alpha2 band between the auditory cortex (BA21, 22) and the right DLPFC and OFC ( Figure 3c ).

Statistical significance was set at a p -value of <0.05, and marginal significance was set at a p -value of <0.10.

Table 4 shows results from a multiple regression model, which indicated that, while the association with parental warmth was reduced to marginal significance ( p < 0.10) when controlling for other predictors, the aforementioned effects of parental hostility, caregiver-rated health, academic achievement and absenteeism were reduced but remained significant.

In the initial univariate screening, variables with marginal significance (P<0.1) were identified as potential prognostic factors and included in the multivariate Cox regression model for further validation.

First, all parameters showing marginal significance ( P < 0.10) in univariate analyses were included; subsequently, these were incorporated into a stepwise multivariable regression model.

A difference or an association was considered to achieve statistical significance when p < 0.05; marginal significance ( p < 0.10) was also reported. 3.

Substantial associations ( p -value < 0.05) with the eGFR slope were established for GPX3, FERMT3, CFHR1, and RARRES2, while marginal significance ( p -value < 0.1) was observed for SERPINF1, AFM, and elevated Mayo classes; conversely, age, sex, and eGFR did not retain statistical significance.

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and statistical significance was set as a p-value ≤ 0.05 and marginal significance at 0.05 < p-value ≤ 0.1.