“marginally significant”

TE had no significant differences ( R = 0.20, P < 0.10) between H and L groups but showed more marginally significant differences than H and L groups in RE ( R = 0, P > 0.10) and SE ( R = 0.09, P > 0.10) communities.

However, the Commercial treatment promoted an 18% reduction in g s compared with the Control ( p < 0.10, marginally significant) ( Figure 4 a).

On the between-level, EE is positively related to trait EL, but not to (aggregated) state EL (only having a marginally significant relationship, p < 0.10).

Results were considered significant with P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant with 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

For sentences with a missing VP2, the contrast between main and embedded S1 clause was marginally significant (33 vs. 41%, z = 1.65, p = 0.10). 5.3.

Table 3 shows that among the ANMs observed in both rounds, there was evidence that daily proportions of time spent on non-work activity decreased for ANM-3 in facility-A (46.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.041) and for ANM-5 in facility-B (42.5% vs 21.1%, p = 0.035); marginally significant reductions were also observed for ANM-4 and ANM-7 in facility-B ( p = 0.100 and p = 0.064, respectively).

Significant associations were determined with a p value of <0.001, <0.05, and marginally significant associations were determined with a p value of <0.1.

Stepwise multivariate logistic regression methods using candidate variables that were, at a minimum, marginally significant in the univariate analysis (p <0.10) were conducted to obtain factors independently associated with household attack rates and household member attack rates.

For work ability, Model 3.9a revealed a marginally significant interaction between SOC and MHI ( p <.10), which became statistically significant in Model 3.9b after removing non-significant predictors.

Results Which lighting condition maximizes the number and size of clones that a mother generated? By the fourth week of the experiment, the mother phenotype differentially responded to lighting conditions (MANOVA: F 39,192 = 3.68, P<0.001) and genotype (MANOVA: F 13,62 = 31.25, P<0.001) and their interaction was marginally significant (MANOVA: F 39,192 = 1.34, P = 0.10).

Predictors that were found to be marginally significant (p < 0.10) in the bivariate analyses were considered for inclusion in a stepwise regression model (p < 0.10 to enter and p < 0.10 to remain) to construct a final, season-specific model for each of the pollutants by season.

We report below eye-tracking measures presenting statistically significant fixed effects of typicality, pronoun , and typicality*pronoun ( p < 0.05), and corresponding significant or marginally significant ( p < 0.1) results of contrast analyses, separated for measure.

Furthermore, posthoc t -tests between the conditions (not shown in in Table 3 ) with and without inoculation actually suggest that three of the inoculation conditions were statistically higher in negative affect compared to respondents assigned to conditions without inoculation (the political with inoculation condition for the HPV vaccine treatment on distress and the combined politicization with inoculation COVID treatment conditions for both irritation and distress) and three more were marginally significant at the P < 0.1 level (controversy and political inoculation conditions on irritation and uncertainty inoculation on distress, which were P = 0.08 for all three). 5.2.

The overall multivariate test for a time effect on the 3 content dependent variables, based on Wilks’ criteria, was marginally significant, F(3, 28)=2.67, p<0.10, partial η 2 =0.22.

Differences were considered significant if P < 0.05 and marginally significant if P < 0.10.

All the cross-lagged paths remained significant, except the relationship between functional dependence at T1 and depressive symptoms at T2, which was marginally significant (0.05 < P < 0.10).

In multivariate analyses, we estimated the effect (HR) of each of the T‐cell mRNA markers adjusted for the effect of the clinicopathological parameters that were statistically significant or marginally significant in the univariate analysis ( P < 0.10).

Path analysis employing the structural equations method As shown in Tables 3 and 4 , the Chi-squared tests show that the rGE correlation between carrying ADRB2 minor alleles and negative emotion cannot be ruled out (the estimates are marginally significant, p <0.1).

Δχ 2 was marginally significant when comparing two subgroups based on resilience (Δχ 2 = 13.394, p < .10), indicating that at least one path can be different based on the level of resilience.

Follow‐up pairwise contrasts showed there was a marginally significant difference between the anomalous and expected targets ( t (88) = −2.17, p = 0.10).

Results were considered significant with P ≤ 0.05 and were considered marginally significant with P ≤ 0.10.

The gender difference in decline was marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

Significant predictors ( p < 0.05) and marginally significant predictors ( p < 0.1) were included in a multiple model with interaction terms.

Other marginally significant ( p < 0.1) pairwise comparisons were also evidenced for Co-Production.

fish (p < .01) and marginally significant trends (p < .1) for differences between birds vs fruit, birds vs trees, and mammals vs fruit.