“marginally significant”

Differences in the levels of ifnβ transcripts ( P = 0.062) and stx11 ( P = 0.056) between the double mutants were marginally significant (0.05 < P < 0.1).

All synchronous-asynchronous pairwise comparisons, such as MM-MS and SS-MS, were significant ( p < 0.001), as were all asynchronous-silent pairings (except MS-NM which was marginally significant; p < 0.1).

There was also a downward trend (marginally significant, p < 0.1) for “Depression-depression,” but no characteristic trend was observed for “liveliness.” As for emotions (measured using PANAS), negative emotions were significantly ( p < 0.01) lower after the experience.

Results of our sensitivity analysis were similar for overall and individual gatekeeper behaviors except for questioning, which became marginally significant ( p = 0.10).

4 The results of Model 9 in Table 3 showed that the effect of organizational-level HPWS on employee experienced HPWS was marginally significant (Model 9, γ = 0.104, p < 0.1).

As can be seen in the new model, all relationships hypothesized were significant (path LOC → NACH and NACH → CA were significant at p = 0.001; LOC → CA and LOC → RT at p = 0.05; NACH → RT was marginally significant at p = 0.1).

Coercive Parenting, however, showed consistently positive, marginally significant associations with child-reported SPP ( r = 0.30, p = 0.100) and parent-reported SPP ( r = 0.31, p = 0.092).

in the Swabian Alp), while root increment showed initially an inconsistent pattern (as indicated by the marginally significant treatment × exploratory-interaction in Table 3 ; Fig. 2 left; F 2, 82 = 2.82, P < 0.1).

In each case, the statistically significant ( p < 0.05) associations reported in Table 3 remained significant or became marginally significant ( p < 0.1 for two models including income), and nearly all model estimates in the T1I1 group changed by < 10%.

Due to the small sample size, we decided to highlight marginally significant effects (p < .10) when reporting the regression results [ 65 ].

Concerning the differences in transitions between land uses in the four mosaics types, only two transition types showed significant differences ( P <0.05), whereas two more were marginally significant ( P <0.10).

Results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant (tendency) at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

Rates of guns reported lost or stolen emerge as either significantly positively associated ( p < 0.05; model 2) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10; model 5) with the outcomes in two of the six models, but they certainly drop out when relying on more stringent alpha levels of 0.01 or 0.001.

Memory performance was only a marginally significant covariate, F (1, 40) = 3.34, p < 0.10, and there was still a significant effect of label condition even when memory performance was included first in a stepwise linear regression, F (2, 40) = 8.75, p < 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.30.

On the other hand, a marginally significant positive correlation was found between changes in PCO 2 after six months, and changes in TBP after one month (r=0.36, P<0.1).

When smoking status and obesity were added (Model 6), the main effect of educational resources at 12 years of schooling remained negative and marginally significant (b = −0.017, 95% CI: −0.035, 0.002; p < 0.10), while the interaction term was attenuated and no longer statistically significant (b = −0.003, 95% CI: −0.008, 0.001). 3.2.5 Predicted differences across educational attainment levels Fig. 2 translates Models 5-6 into predicted differences in inflammation when comparing individuals educated in states at the 90th versus 10th percentile of educational resources, across levels of educational attainment (8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 years).

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

We also considered marginally significant results for p < 0.10.

With regard to indirect relations, working memory as a foundational cognitive skill had only a marginally significant indirect relation with later reading comprehension via mental state language (β = 0.05, p < 0.10) and metacognitive knowledge (β = 0.05, p < 0.10).

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.

In a comparison of all three TOP/culture categories from Table 1 , multivariate results revealed that age (p = 0.02) and gender (p<0.001) were statistically significant and previous TB treatment was marginally significant (p = 0.10).

Thus, it would be more reasonable to evaluate the reliability of DE genes identified in only one dataset for a cancer type using the change directions of those genes showing at least marginally significant changes (e.g., p<0.1) in another dataset.

The average total effect was positive and marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

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

In the subpopulation with baseline 24-h SBP ≥155 mmHg, the pooled effect of RDN was marginally significant (MD = −2.92 mmHg; 95% CI : −6.36–0.53 mmHg; P = 0.10).