“marginally significant”

Thus, for positive affect and spirituality, differences between informants of respondents with questionable dementia and informants of respondents with mild or moderate dementia were not as large as those observed for stress and poor mental health, but still meaningful (> 5pp) and marginally significant ( p < .10).

The finding was marginally significant ( p < 0.10) for the Work and Welfare group.

For bacteria, the Acidobacteriales and Vicinamibacteraceae have significant differences ( p < 0.05) and Gaiellales have a marginally significant difference (0.05 < p < 0.1) under all the treatments ( Fig. 4A ).

The relation between GDP per capita and Distrust–Trust is marginally significant (β = 2.76; p < .10).

Marginally significant interactions ( p < 0.1) were explored with pairwise comparisons for the frontal and parietal electrode sites separately, with Bonferroni correction to correct for multiple comparisons.

A fourth variable, maternal depression, yielded a marginally significant (p < .10) disparity indicating higher levels for Black mothers than Non-Hispanic White mothers.

Regarding the theta power, the three-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for electrode location [ F (2, 84) = 133.81, p < 0.01] and a marginally significant interaction between condition and set [ F (6, 84) = 1.95, p < 0.1].

With regard to the adequacy of the model, it can be observed that for Total Polar Compounds and Folin-Ciocalteu it was significant ( p ≤ 0.05), while for the variables FRAP and TEAC, it was marginally significant ( p ≤ 0.1).

Moreover, although the main effect for SVO in the analysis of Security was marginally significant ( p = .10), the mean differences were in the opposite direction to the mean differences in the analysis of Conformity.

Differences are indicated as significant ( p < 0.05; different letters) and marginally significant ( p < 0.1; asterisks), following least significant difference post hoc tests.

Treatment differences were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

As this was a pioneering study exploring a poorly understood phenomenon, we aspired to detect any effect of human emotional odors on horses’ behavior and physiology and also considered marginally significant results, with a criterion of p-values ≤ 0.1.

None of the groups showed a statistically significant association with the presence of fruits and only a marginally significant ( P < 0.10) interaction between distance to the nearest water and presence of fruits was found for medium frugivores ( Fig 3 , Table 2 ).

Results Significant ( P < 0.05) or marginally significant ( P < 0.10) effects of 0.50–0.65 kg were found at all time points (except 9 mo) in arm A.

To evaluate independent factors associated with NOSVA (time-dependent variable), significant or marginally significant univariate risk factors ( p < 0.10) recorded prior or at the time of the first episode of NOSVA, were examined using backward stepwise multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model; septic myocardial dysfunction and patient severity as assessed by SAPS II score at ICU admission were also included in the model; thus, the five variables included in the model were SAPS II score at ICU admission, age, septic myocardial dysfunction, renal and non-renal SOFA scores at day 1 of septic shock.

FC Analysis of within-region FC revealed a significant time by group interaction for the right dlPFC (F (1,43) = 8.552, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.16) and a marginally significant interaction in the right IFG (F (1,43) = 6.34, p < 0.1, η2 = 0.13).

After univariable analysis, potential predictor variables with respect to multivariable LR were identified based on whether or not they were significant (p<0.05) or marginally significant (0.05≤p<0.10).

No micro-scale subscales or composites were significantly associated with self-reported recreation MVPA ( Table 4 ), though marginally significant associations were observed for route positive streetscape elements (B = 0.15, SE = 0.08, P = 0.10), overall micro-scale positive for active transportation (B = 0.16, SE = 0.08, P = 0.08), and overall micro-scale positive (B = 0.16, SE = 0.09, P = 0.09) in relation to self-reported recreation MVPA.

The final model was obtained by retaining those with P <0.05 and some marginally significant clinical variables with P <0.10.

Results that were significant at a p < 0.05 level (or marginally significant (0.05 <= p < 0.10) as indicated) are presented below when a consistent linear trend across the categories in question was evident (curvilinear trends were not considered) and if no cells had zero values and no more than 20% of cells had values less than five.

Any significant or marginally significant ( P <0.1) factors or interactions between factors were retained, and included in a new minimum adequate model.

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

Bivariate analysis focused on identifying covariates that showed at least a marginally significant (p-value ≤ 0.10) association with SEQ-12 score.

Other relationships rarely met the P < 0.05 statistical thresholds or were marginally significant at P < 0.10 threshold, such as LDMC, major vein density, major and minor vein MST ratios ( Table 3 ). ΔAn% was significantly influenced by force-to-tear and minor vein density, while ΔEt% and Δgsw% were only correlated to force to tear ( P < 0.05 and P = 0.06, respectively).

As T2LV was marginally significant ( P < 0.10) in these later analyses, it is possible that significance could be demonstrated in a future study with a larger sample size.