“marginal significance”

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

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

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

An additional six GPLs were reported to be upregulated with marginal significance ( p < 0.1): PE 18:1_22:5, PE 18:2_20:2, PC 18:1_20:4, PC 18:2_20:3, PE O 16:0_22:5, and PE O 16:0_22:4 [ 18 ].

An interaction effect of chronic stress with linear rather than squared basal cortisol approached marginal significance in predicting parent-reported INTadj given a very severe PH, p = 0.10, and was significant in predicting self-reported INTadj given a very severe PH, p = 0.013, as well as parent-reported and self-reported INTadj given no PH, p = 0.010 and p = 0.007, respectively.

Table 3 shows that age at diagnosis had no significant effect on survival on stage I/II, but a marginal significance (p < 0.1) for stage III cases.

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

Although no individual time points demonstrated significant differences, p values with marginal significance were observed at 1 and 6 hours after processing (p = 0.10 and p = 0.12, respectively; ( Table 1 ).

Marginal significance, also referred to as trends, was defined as p < 0.1.

We observed a small but significant increase in PGE 2 in HaCaT exposed to calcipotriol; pre-incubation with AVX001 reduced the stimulatory effect, reaching marginal significance ( p < 0.1) at the highest dose used (3 μM) ( Figure 1 C).

The model with the additional covariates showed marginal significance (at p < 0.10) for social participation ( p = 0.079).

Conversely, differences in female and partner ages were statistically significant ( p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively), with habits of tea consumption showing marginal significance ( p < 0.10).

The results showed the TT genotype carriers of Chinese population may have a relative lower risk for the development of glioma compared with the TC + CC genotype carriers only at the marginal significance threshold ( P < .1; OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.07–0.94) (Table 5 ).

The E cell also appears to have a stiffer cortex than MS and ABpl as manifested through the lower relaxation time, though the effect only has a marginal significance level ( p < 0.1, Figure 2D).

Similarly for IMMACULATE, the fully adjusted HRs were 1.13 (95% CI: 1.04–1.22) for MACE and 1.11 (95% CI: 1.01–1.22) for HF and only the fully adjusted model showed significant improvement from the unadjusted model with significance for IDI ( p -value < 0.05) and marginal significance for cNRI ( p -value < 0.10).

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 ).

A multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with potential predictors of recurrent VTE during treatment and after treatment cessation, after maintaining variables that resulted in at least marginal significance ( p < 0.10) in the univariate analysis.

Differences were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05, and marginal significance was assumed at 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.

The significance level was set at p < 0.05, and the marginal significance level was set at p < 0.1.

Data with marginal significance (p value <0.1) were also discussed.

Although the interaction between Internet use status and left-behind status reached only marginal significance (β = 0.713, p < 0.1), the positive coefficient indicates that the mental health benefits of Internet use status were also attenuated in this group.

For exercise, there was marginal significance at p < 0.10 [ 49 ] for the interaction effect between group and time (F(1, 118) = 3.474, p = 0.065, partial η 2 = 0.029).

The growth curves for weight differed between the CSE group and the non-CSE group, with marginal significance ( P = 0.10).

In contrast, internet censorship and internet coverage was associated with lower reported number of both cases and deaths during the pandemic but at only marginal significance (p < .1).

In addition, despite marginal significance, pooled colostrum feeding on a farm had a negative impact on seroprevalence (coefficient = -0.90, p = 0.10).