“marginal significance”

Marginal significance values (p < 0.10) show that among Hispanics, there may be a higher intake of vegetables and lower intake of sweets among the low total daily caloric intake group.

Data were analyzed using a significance level of p<0.05 and a marginal significance level of. 05≤p<0.10.

( 2015 ) criterion for “marginal significance” ( P < 0.10).

Statistical significance was determined at p = .05, and marginal significance ( p < .1) was also noted.

The difference in the percentage of infants per condition who habituated within 14 events also approaches marginal significance (2X2 Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0.10; 95% CI on the difference [-1, 36]).

The marginal significance ( p < 0.1) warrants caution in interpretation given the small male subsample ( n = 5).

The level of amputation approached marginal significance ( p ≈ 0.10), suggesting a possible trend toward more severe outcomes in the non-MR group.

Additionally, maternal age at delivery and the place of delivery displayed marginal significance ( p < 0.10).

Marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.10) was also reported for group main and interaction effects, as these values may indicate trends toward statistical significance (Amrhein et al. 2019 ).

Completion compliance was lower with marginal significance (0.05<p≤0.10) among those whose first official language was French (AOR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.03) and those with an early MHSU interaction (AOR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.05).

Those factors meeting marginal significance (p < 0.1) on univariate analysis were included in a multivariate binary logistic regression model.

Independent-samples t -tests revealed that such differences reached marginal significance for total creative potential as well as the fluency and originality dimensions ( p < 0.1).

Additionally, sex and multifocality were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis with marginal significance (0.05 < p < 0.1).

Variables with marginal significance ( p < 0.10) in univariable analyses were included in the multivariable model: Block 1 (individual factors: age, education, years of practice, depersonalization, empathy); Block 2 (institutional factors: availability of psychological services, sufficient variety of psychiatric medications, referral pathways); Block 3 (systemic factors: incentive policies, PMSC training in residency, PMSC training in continuing education).

While some of the associations for obesity reached marginal significance ( p < 0.10), there was no discernible association with general health and injury.

The result of the KMP database indicated that high expression levels of USP10, USP14, and USP39 were significantly related to a poor OS in PDAC patients while USP18 expression showed a marginal significance (0.05 < P < 0.1) and USP32 and USP33 were not significant associated with the OS of PDAC patients.

Most incremental validity tests (step 2) were significant, with exceptions being that the dissatisfied/inefficient phenotype only reached marginal significance (i.e.,.05 < p < .10) over most sleep characteristics in the M2 sample and the irregular sleeper phenotype did not significantly predict cardiovascular conditions above any individual sleep characteristics in the MR sample.

To have the latent change model identified, we fixed the residuals and the gender effects above marginal significance ( p > 0.10) to zero, one by one, until we obtained the final model.

Variables showing associations with a p <0.05 and with a marginal significance in the univariable analysis (p <0.1) were entered into the multivariable model.

Therefore, we found only marginal significance ( P < 0.1) between treatments in sand, but the opposite trend than we observed in loam.

However, the marginal significance level ( p < 0.1) warrants cautious interpretation.

Among these, ME1 and ALDH2 approached marginal significance (p-value < 0.1).

Effect modification was considered statistically significant at an FDR-adjusted p-value <0.05, with marginal significance defined as p < 0.1.

A multinomial logistic regression showed significant associations for the Moderately Attained profile at both time points and for the Resistor profile at T2 (also marginal significance at T1, with 0.05 < p < 0.10 ) At T2, students who were one standard deviation above the mean on negative math emotions were less than half as likely to be in the Moderately Attained or the Resistor profile, compared to their odds of being in the Devalued/Ambivalent profile.

Applying an FDR correction [39] using the program QVALUE (available from http://genomics.princeton.edu/storeylab/qvalue/ ) in the R statistics package ( http://www.r-project.org/ ) reduced this to ten loci at FDR <0.05, including four domestication-related and six improvement-related genes, with a three additional loci exhibiting marginal significance for selection during sunflower improvement after FDR correction (0.05< P <0.10).