“marginal 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.

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.

The high stress condition increased STAI scores (M = 38.4, SD = 10.6) during the task, relative to the low stress condition (M = 33.2, SD = 7.72), with marginal significance, F (1, 9) = 3.13, p = 0.10.

The interaction effect between EPA, PGE2, LXB5, LXB4, and APOE4 on global cognition was significant ( p < 0.05), while PGD2, LTB4, and LXA4, 5-HEPE and RvD3 showed marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.1) (Fig. 4 B).

The estimator maintained marginal significance and increased in magnitude (+0.072 cases per 100 FTs, p value = 0.10) within analyses including only industries with high proportions of insured workers (>75%) but disappeared in analyses including only industries with low proportions of insured employees (+0.024 cases per 100 FTs, p value = 0.38) ( Table 3 , Fig. 3 ).

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).

In this subgroup, there was also a marginal significance for an increase in FEV 1 (76.6±18.7 to 79.7%±21.5% predicted, P=0.10) and a decrease in blood lymphocytes (2462 (2119–2949) to 2287 (1779–2948)/μL, P=0.058).

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

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

However, given that most other measures showed no such interaction and this effect only reached marginal significance (p < .1), we are inclined to treat this finding as statistically unreliable, though future research may help clarify whether a genuine interaction exists.

The AST serum concentration in these mice was also higher than that of mice administered with the corresponding dose of OA or PLTX as individual toxins (62% or 72%, respectively), even at marginal significance level (0.05 < p < 0.10) ( Figure 4 b). 2.7.

Table 2 summarizes SNP–phenotype associations with significant or marginal significance ( p < 0.10).

The thresholds for statistical significance is set at p < 0.05, and marginal significance is set at p < 0.1.

However, this particular association was diminished to marginal significance with the inclusion of other factors ( p ≤ 0.10).

Upon examining variables with marginal significance ( P <0.10) in the univariate analysis, a notable statistical disparity was observed in three cohorts within the methylation group.

When combination of enhancement and IPH was used for culprit plaque classification, DL-VWI showed higher AUROC (0.91; sensitivity 100%, specificity 81.6%) in diagnosing culprit plaques than Conv-VWI (0.84; sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 79.6%), with marginal significance ( P = 0.10).

Variables that reached statistical significance ( P < 0.05) or marginal significance ( P < 0.10) in bivariate comparisons were subsequently entered into multivariate logistic regression analysis using forward and backward stepwise selection method to identify significantly independent factors associated with RVR and SVR.

As for the cases of deaths due to COVID-19, the association is observed with temporality of the epidemiological weeks (χ2 = 2599.84; df = 1; p-value <0.001), PHC coverage strata (χ2 = 24.85; df = 2; p-value <0.001), PHC quality strata (χ2 = 55.42; df = 1; p-value <0.001) and social isolation rate (χ2 = 9.48; gl = 1; p-value = 0.002) as well as the demographic density (χ2 = 3.12; df = 1; p-value = 0.07), bed/population ratio (χ2 = 2.75; df = 1; p-value = 0.09) and the quantity of COVID-19 cases (χ2 = 3.10; df = 1; p-value = 0.07) diagnosed with marginal significance ( p-value <0.10), Table 3 .

The effect of physicality on user cognitive trust only reaches marginal significance ( p <0.10) when considering the moderating role of users' familiarity with IVIS.

The simple main effect of the content conveyed for the ear animation with voice (voice & movement) showed marginal significance ( F (2,46)=2.74, p < 0.1, η 2 = 0.12).

Statistical significance was set at P <.05, with marginal significance noted at P <.10.

These variables were then screened for marginal significance (p<0.10) related to mortality over the first year after the occurrence of STEMI.

Marginal significance was determined by p < 0.10.

This inversed relationship between high TmS and improved survival can be appreciated across all patients with TNBC in METABRIC with marginal significance ( n = 214, HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.44, 1.12, log-rank P = 0.1; Fig. 4i and Supplementary Table 7 ), likely reflecting that most of these patients received systemic therapy.

Correlations for scores were significant to marginal significance for sessions 1–3 (ranging from R = 0.43 to 0.52 with p < 0.1) but not significant for the fourth session (R = 0.13, p = NS).