“marginally significant”

Wilcoxon's signed-rank test revealed a marginally significant difference (defined as when 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1) between both conditions ( z = 1.83, p = 0.068).

A test of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium showed marginally significant departure (0.05<p<0.1) for 7 polymorphisms, while the others were in Hard-Weinberg equlibrium.

In contrast, in patients without active bleeding, multivariate analysis revealed that direct clipping was associated with significantly lower rates of early and late rebleeding (both p < 0.05) and marginally significant lower rates of blood transfusion requirement and IVR need during hospitalization (both p < 0.1).

We additionally report areas found to be marginally significant (p<0.10), as these areas may be informative to underlying white matter microstructural changes in PD in a larger sample.

As described previously, we confirmed the influence of seasonality on the results of the question items of “Frequently purchased goods.” The results indicate that consumer electronics, medicine, and cosmetics showed marginally significant increases or statistically significant increases ( p < 0.10 or 0.05, respectively).

Public religiousness had a marginally significant effect on recovering addicts’ after-treatment abstinence (β = 0.199, p < 0.1), with the increased odds of 22%.

As expected, the judges rated participants in the high-power group as significantly more powerful ( M = 4.78, SD = 1.69) than those in the low-power group [ M = 2.17, SD = 1.38, t (68) = 7.06, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.72] and marginally significant more power than those in the control group [ M = 4.18, SD = 1.02, t (62) = 1.68, p = 0.10, Cohen’s d = 0.43].

A stepwise multiple variable logistic regression model was created, using death within 24 h as a dependent variable that considered variables which were marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in the univariate logistic regression as covariates (APACHE scores >20, >65 years of age, sepsis, FiO 2 per 10 % increase, epinephrine dose >10 μg/min, norepinephrine dose >20 μg/min, vasopressin dose >0.02 μg/min).

Results show that when we entered proactive personality, career adaptability and their interaction item into the regression model, proactive personality had a significant positive effect on performance ( B = 0.32, p < 0.001), whereas the effect of career adaptability on performance is marginally significant ( B = 0.122, p = 0.10).

We also found a marginally significant main effect of Group in stimulus GS1‐1, GS2‐2, and GS3‐3 (all p values < .1).

Both health states only had a marginally significant effect on temperance ( p < 0.10) and no significant effect on perspective.

Differences in gut microbiota between healthy controls and IBS subjects were significant in 9 out of 13 cohorts ( p < 0.05, PERMANOVA, Figure 2c ), with two additional cohorts marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

With regards to disclosure, women who fully disclosed ring use and study participation to their partners had higher PS and lower PR scores, with marginally significant differences in mean scores (at p<0.1).

Overall, however, evidence for most of the evolutionary mechanisms tested in the current study was generally weak; of the 14 statistical tests 2 yielded significant results (expected by chance = 0.7), and 4 total yielded significant or marginally significant (i.e., p<.10) results (expected by chance = 1.4, Table 3 ).

Additionally, a marginally significant correlation was observed between 3-year-olds’ total sleep duration and 4-year-olds’ WM ( r = 0.13, p < 0.10), indicating a potential developmental link.

Results revealed significant differences in satisfaction with symptom management ( P <.001) and SDS-15 scores ( P= .04), and marginally significant differences in perceived control over symptoms ( P= .10) across adherence categories.

However, the response rate did not vary significantly between demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, occupation, marital status), place of residence, smoking and alcohol history at the residence, or clinical characteristics, except that the rTMS protocol used had some marginally significant ( p -value < 0.10) effect on the response rate.

Having been apprehended as a child was also marginally significant (at a level of p<0.10) in our final multivariable model (AOR = 1.48; 95%CI 0.90–2.43), and age was not statistically significant (AOR = 1.00 (95% 0.97–1.03)).

For the exact test and the Ewens–Watterson homozygosity test, small probability values, p = Pr ( F EXP ≤ F OBS ) indicate balancing selection ( p ≤ .05 considered significant and p ≤ .10 marginally significant), while large values indicate directional or divergent selection ( p ≥ .95 considered significant and p ≥ .9 marginally significant); note that these p values are not statistical test probabilities but the placement of an observed value in a distribution of values expected under neutrality.

The marginally significant inverse relationship between HbA1c and all-cause mortality observed when δNfL is set at its mean (CDE < 0, p < 0.10) becomes non-significant when δNfL is not fixed in the total population with this difference in effect caused by pure interaction as well as mediated interaction (IR > 0, IM > 0, p < 0.05), indicative of synergism between HbA1c and δNfL in determining mortality risk.

The interaction effect of “group × intervention period” on BBS score was marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.10): the BBS score of IG was significantly increased after intervention compared to baseline; however, CG remained almost unchanged over the same period ( Table 4 ).

Estimates for Specifications 2 and 3 reduced similarly and were both marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in Model 2.

The repeated-measures ANOVA also yielded a significant interaction between congruency and category ( F (2, 38) = 4.17, p < 0.05 ) and a marginally significant interaction between congruency, category, and distance ( F (2, 38) = 2.77, p < 0.10 ).

It was also shown that ADHD patients had more problems with social relations with their peers although the effects were marginally significant (i.e., p < 0.1). 3.2.

And the group differences of C net and E local at some K cost points were significant ( P <0.05, uncorrected) or marginally significant ( P <0.1, uncorrected).