“marginally significant”

The interaction between SLM training and gender is also positive and marginally significant (β = 0.0.315, p < 0.1 ).

Of note, there were no significant differences between Profiles #2 and #3 for most academic functioning indicators; academic expectations were higher, at a marginally significant trend ( p < .10), for those in Profile #3 ( high general, moderate cultural & critical support ) compared to those in Profile #2 ( moderate general, moderate cultural, & devoid critical support ) for White youth.

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

The remaining 5 species had no response to fertilizer addition, although Achillea and Senecio had marginally significant responses (0.05<P<0.10).

The results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05 and marginally significant if p < 0.10.

These differences are statistically significant or marginally significant ( P < 0.1) for all species except D. ananassae , D. mojavensis , and D. virilis.

There was a significant direct effect from global trait EI to major satisfaction (β = 0.181, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant direct effect from global trait EI to procrastination (β = –0.117, p < 0.10).

All the solid lines and dotted lines represent significant ( P < 0.05) and marginally significant (0.05 < P < 0.1, n = 32) linear regression.

However, multiple other 5′ tRNA halves and 5′ YRNA fragments belonged to modules (i.e., Black, Brown, GreenYellow, and Turquoise) that displayed marginally significant trends (0.05 < P < 0.1) with the cancer trait ( Figure 2B , Supplementary Figures 1 , 2 ). 5′ tRNA-Val-CAC-2-1 Half Is Part of a Key miRNA-Enriched Regulatory Coexpression Module That Targets Genes Involved in the Negative Regulation of the G1/S Transition of the Mitotic Cell Cycle As commented above, we reasoned that miRNAs and 5′ tRNA halves and/or 5′ YRNA fragments that are coregulated and involved in common biological pathways will belong to common coexpression modules detected by the WGCNA method.

Tests were considered statistically significant when P<0.05 and marginally significant when 0.05<P<0.1.

Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 but because of the relatively small sample size, marginally significant results ( p < 0.10) were also reported.

p for trend estimates were marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

The effect of water addition on species richness was marginally significant ( P <0.1) depending on N treatments in the steppe but independent of N treatments in the old field ( Table 1 ).

The main effect for comprehensive smoke-free laws was statistically significant in New York ( b = −1.483, P < 0.05) and marginally significant at the 10% level in Florida ( b = −4.377, P < 0.10).

There was a marginally significant effect between weeks of telecommuting on two domains—distraction, F (3, 2015) = 2.11, p = 0.10, and work-life effectiveness, F (3, 2015) = 2.11, p = 0.10.

Measures that were at least marginally significant (p=0.10) were retained in the multivariate analyses.

We observed a significant main effect of S1-R1 compatibility, F (1, 15) = 8.29, p < 0.05, partial η 2 = 0.36, and a marginally significant main effect of S1-R2 compatibility, F (1, 15) = 3.50, p < 0.10, partial η 2 = 0.19 (note that only trials of the 0 ms SOA of the joint condition were included in the present analyses), indicating faster RTs for compatible trials than for incompatible trials.

Additionally, in the heating season, the GMs of BbFA, BkFA, BaP, DahA, and Σ10-PAHs in school B were higher than those in school A by 38%, 47%, 26%, 26%, and 39%, respectively ( P < 0.05), with a marginally significant difference between schools for FLA, CHR, BaA, DghiP, and IcdP ( P < 0.10).

Furthermore, there was a marginally significant negative effect of soil from heterospecifics vs. conspecifics on the survival of Prunus serotina seedlings (GLMM, F 1,53 = 2.77, P = 0.10; Fig. 1 ), and other species were unaffected (H1)( P ≥0.40).

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.

Significant ( p < .05) and marginally significant ( p < .10) interactions were probed by testing the conditional effects of the predictor at three levels of the moderator (mean and ± 1 SD ).

The results revealed a marginally significant effect of smiling on trustworthiness (Model 1; p <.10), with trustworthiness significantly predicting funding likelihood (Model 2; p <.01).

Objective To cross-culturally validate the Health Mindset Scale for Brazil, as well as adapt the terms and questionnaires for adequate understanding of Brazilians, using factor analysis as an instrument to validate its reliability. Methods Cross-cultural validation of the Health Mindset Scale into Brazilian Portuguese using the Beaton method, Cronbach's alpha calculation and factor analysis Results The sample consisted of 215 patients aged between 18 and 87 years (M = 41.98; SD = 15.72), with a mean age between 31 and 50 years (42.0%), and female (52 .6%), a marginally significant difference (p < 0.10) between men and women was observed for item 3.

Marginally significant interaction terms ( P < 0.1) between sex and Pb were observed for LINE-1 (tibia and early childhood Pb), H19 (tibia Pb), and HSD11B2 (patella Pb).

When the ANOVAs were at least marginally significant (p<0.1), we ran TukeyHSD tests for more detail on the effect analysed.