“marginal significance”

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.

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

Furthermore, one SNP from RFTN1 (rs796139390), and four SNPs from CSMD1 (i.e., rs114254701, rs10503200, rs56391646, and rs149909271) achieved a nominally marginal significance level (P < 0.10) for an association with CPD.

Due to the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the present analysis, marginal significance was also used to assess the significance of associations and set at P < 0.10.

2 b, the difference scores (concrete minus abstract) were significant in the predicted direction for eight of the nine measures ( p < 0.05, two-tailed; cognitive factors reached marginal significance in the predicted direction, p < 0.10).

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

Significance was set at p < 0.05, and marginal significance was set at p < 0.10.

Compared to those with a dominant hierarchical culture, local governments with a dominant egalitarian culture has a higher level of equal public participation but only at a marginal significance level (MD = 0.52, p < 0.1) and have no difference in authentic public participation.

Five other loci from the DMR reached marginal significance ( P < 0.10), Fig. 6B .

Main effects and pairwise differences were considered significant if p < 0.05, while a marginal significance was considered in the case of 0.05 < p < 0.1.

Note that because the hypothesis was directed, we considered marginal significance (i.e., p < .1, two-sided) to be indicative of a reliable difference in this case.

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

Statistical analyses were performed using R (Version 3.5.1) [ 51 ], with significance defined as p < 0.05 and marginal significance as p < 0.10 (two-sided tests).

Criterion for marginal significance was P < 0.10.

Down-regulation of Atg7 in β-TC6 cells also reduced the expression of complexes I and II, with marginal significance ( P <0.1).

But Farm A showed marginal significance ( p < 0.1) of phage administration to reduced mortality in the next week following phage administration ( Fig. 3 A).

As expected, the temporal stability in C 4 ANPP was greater than C 3 ANPP (paired t -test; df=23; t =−3.26; P= 0.003) on average 18.3% across all treatments with marginal significance (paired t -test; P <0.1) in the unwarmed (paired t -test; P= 0.08) and clipped treatments (paired t -test; P= 0.07) ( Fig. 1b ), primarily because C 4 species had greater production due possibly to the inherent higher water and nitrogen use efficiency 6 10 14 .

In preliminary univariate analyses, variables showing marginal significance ( p < 0.10) in t -tests (for continuous variables) or chi-square tests (for categorical variables) were selected for inclusion in subsequent multivariate logistic regression modeling.

A positive effect was also observed at a marginal significance level in the “equal subjective age” group ( p < 0.1, Model 2).

Additionally, marginal significance was reported in some subscales of the FAD, including roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behaviour control and general function ( p < 0.1).

To determine the significance of effects, we adhered to traditional significance levels of p <0.05 and also note marginal significance at p <0.10.

In addition, the visual cortex also showed decreased activation power in the VD group, but with marginal significance (two-sided test, face condition: P < 0.1; object condition: P < 0.1).

Entered factors included those with at least marginal significance ( P < 0.1) on univariate analysis, using enter method. and those previously reported as major affecting factors of the functional outcome.

Multivariate analysis showed marginal significance between disease diagnosis and gender ( p < 0.10), and statistical significance between disease diagnosis and income ( p = 0.03).

Only five loci (rs2070744, rs1800896, rs1800629, rs1799724, and rs4762) showed a significant difference in genotype composition between patients with PE and controls (chi-square test, P < 0.05) and additional two (rs2549782 and rs7412) showed marginal significance ( P < 0.1 and P ≥ 0.05) (Tables 1 and 2 ).