“marginally significant”

Multivariate Cox regression analysis (step-wise method) including significant univariate variables and marginally significant variables ( p < 0.10) in the univariate analysis was performed to determine the independent prognostic factors for new-lesion PCI.

Educational level effects became marginally significant (p = 0.10) while the nutritional state stopped being significant (p > 0.10).

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 significantly for p ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant for 0.05 < p ≤ 0.1 (Gelman, 2013 ).

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.

Several imputed SNPs, i.e., rs4987053 in exon 3, rs17217831 in intron 2, rs13067058 in promoter region, and rs3091309 in intron 1, achieved significant ( p <0.05) or marginally significant ( p <0.10) p values in our GWAS sample.

Multivariate Cox regression analysis, including the significant predictors above and the marginally significant ones ( P < 0.10) (including age, hypertension, and dyslipidemia) in the univariate model, showed that low eGFR, poor LVEF, and the absence of statin treatment were independent predictors of death in CKD patients after PCI (Table 4 ).

We calculated the summary effect estimate using both fixed and random effect models, since the p-value for the test of homogeneity was marginally significant ( Table 3 ; p<0.10), which suggests some heterogeneity may be present and the variance between studies should be incorporated into the analyses to obtain confidence limits.

Mediation by improved food security was marginally significant in women for both immediate recall (0.018 and 2.8%; P < 0.10) and delayed recall (0.021 and 2.3%; P < 0.10) ( 34 ).

From d 0 to 21, ADFI had a marginally significant improvement ( P < 0.10) in pigs fed up to 10 LL in the diet.

We also tested by means of Welch two-sample t -tests whether male and female participants obtained significantly different scores on each scale: marginally significant differences due to participants sex emerged for ASI Hostile [men scored an average of 2.15 vs. an average of 1.65 for women, t (29.35) = 1.73, p < 0.1], whereas for the remaining scales no differences due to participants’ sex emerged [all t s < 1].

In addition, exposure to Tupange's Jongo Love radio program was marginally significant (OR = 1.29; P ≤ .10).

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

In adults, the ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for Modality [ F (1, 14) = 89.44, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant interaction of Modality, MT and ISI [ F (1, 12) = 3.9, p < 0.1].

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).

High education emerges as a marginally significant protective factor against being a former denier ( RRR = 0.576, p ≤ 0.10).

The overall outcome remained significant (SMD –0.65, 95% CI –1.20 to –0.10; P =.02), whereas the 6-month outcome remained marginally significant (SMD –0.32, 95% CI –0.71 to 0.07; P =.10).

Past–negative TP showed a marginally significant negative effect on promotion focus (β = -0.13, p < 0.10, SE = 0.06) and innovativeness (β = -0.31, p < 0.00, SE = 0.09); thus, H1a, H1b, H2a, and H2b were supported.

Linear and quadratic trends were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P < 0.10.

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

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

To remove non-significant variables from the analysis, the threshold p value was set at 0.1 (p>0.1), and the final Cox model retained marginally significant variables (005<p<0.1).

All variables identified as at least marginally significant (p<0.10) predictors in the univariate mortality analysis were included in the model.

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 ).

Results were considered significant at P < 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P < 0.10.