“marginally significant”

As shown in Table 3 , the interaction term of cases and openness was significant ( b = −0.418, SE = 0.153, p = 0.007), and the interaction term of cases and conscientiousness was marginally significant ( b = −0.163, SE = 0.099, p = 0.10).

Both the left medial frontal gyrus and left inferior parietal lobe displayed marginally significant (0.05< p <0.10) correlation with the number of depressive episodes.

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 ).

], excluding the interval 800–880 msec: at the highest threshold of 4.2 SD when Δt is equal or larger to 2.95 msec, and the interval 300–380 msec: at thresholds larger than 3.3 SD when Δt equal or larger than 2.95 msec, (the lower thresholds 3.3 and 3.6 SD or the smaller Δt 2.95 msec are related to marginally significant p-values (p < 0.1), higher thresholds while at larger Δt are non-significant), LLR stretched_Lognormal (min, max) = [2, 5 * 10 2 ], p(min, max) = [10 −324 , 4 * 10 −2 ], LLR truncPL_stretched (min, max) = [2, 10 3 ], (p(min, max) = [10 −324 , 5 * 10 −2 ], excluding the interval −80–0 msec with marginal significance p < 0.1 at highest threshold when Δt is the largest, and the interval 800–880 msec at highest threshold, 4.2 SD, while Δt larger than 0.98 msec ( i . e ., marginally significant at Δt 1.97 msec, and non-significance at larger Δt).

For ownership of electronic assets, the risk was higher for those at the lowest level (level 1) and decreased with increasing electronic assets, although the relationship was marginally significant at p<0.1 for levels 2, 3 and 4(results not shown).

The mating status of the mother had a marginally significant effect on recruitment probability (type III ANOVA, χ 2 = 4.68, d.f. = 2, p = 0.10), with offspring of secondary polygynous females somewhat less likely to recruit (probability ± s.e.: 0.07 ± 0.01, n = 726 birds) than offspring of primary polygynous females (0.10 ± 0.01; pairwise comparison, p = 0.08, n = 824 birds).

There was marginal evidence of improvement in positive affect and negative affect—the effects were in the theorized direction, but either marginally significant ( p < 0.10) or non-significant.

Variables that were marginally significant ( p < 0.10) in the univariate analysis, and that had clinical relevance were included in the regression models.

Although the difference decreased in magnitude and significance, it remained marginally significant (−0.374, p < .10).

Moreover, a marginally significant correlation (r = −0.425, p<0.10) between planktivory of yellow catfish and zooplankton biomass was also found in this study.

34 Statistical significance was defined as a P value <0.05, with marginally significant results (0.05< P ≤0.10) also reported.

The result supports hypothesis 1a, whose direct negative effect is marginally significant ( β = −0.08, 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.

Significant and marginally significant factors with a p value of <0.100 identified in the univariate analysis were included in the subsequent multiple logistic regression analysis to identify significant factors (with a p value of <0.050) predicting rehospitalization in 2 years after discharge.

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

The association of these risk factors remained significant in multivariable logistic regression; OR: 10.51 (95% CI: 0.83–133.72; P = 0.07, marginally significant at P < 0.1) for pancreatic contrast injection and OR: 5.21 (95% CI: 1.27–21.292; P = 0.02) for SOD.

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.

Plan choice has a marginally significant effect on receipt of speech therapy, yet the effects are only significant for non-users and frequent users ( p <0.10).

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].

Among all the phenotypes, the relative abundance of the anaerobic phenotype showed a significant positive relationship with salinity, and the relative abundance of the stress-tolerant phenotype showed a marginally significant ( P < 0.1) positive relationship with salinity, while the relative abundance of facultative anaerobic and biofilm-forming phenotypes displayed a significantly negative relationship with salinity ( Fig. 4 ).

A marginally significant and negative correlation was found between T 4 and urinary MnBP (R = −0.179; p-value < 0.10).

Results We report here the significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.1) findings which were the focus of the study.

Multivariate Cox regression analysis of the significant and marginally significant predictors ( P < 0.10) in the univariate model revealed that the independent predictors of death in the elderly patients were prior history of MI, low eGFR, and poor LVEF in the elderly patients undergoing PCI (Table 4 ), whereas those in the non-elderly patients were prior history of PCI, higher glucose level, poor LVEF, and absence of statin treatment (Table 6 ).

All results were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.