“marginally significant”

Differences between treatments and day (where appropriate) as well as their interaction were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

Their bias index, displayed in Figure 3 D, appears larger than the control group's at all angles and was marginally significant ( F (1, 28) = 2.84, p = 0.10, η p 2 = 0.09).

In multivariate analyses, we estimated the effect (HR) of each of the T‐cell mRNA markers adjusted for the effect of the clinicopathological parameters that were statistically significant or marginally significant in the univariate analysis ( P < 0.10).

Results with 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1 were considered marginally significant, and those with p ≥ 0.1 were considered not statistically significant.

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

Despite the limitations, three QTLs displayed significant (linear model, P <0.05, n =69) and two QTLs displayed marginally significant (linear model, P <0.10, n =69) correlations with the same traits found in the LAB QTL study ( Supplementary Table 7 ).

The partisan associations became marginally significant ( P < .1) after omitting nonexpansion states ( Appendix Table A3 ).

The difference between these responses was marginally significant ( P = 0.10).

Then, using any factors that were marginally significant ( p < 0.1), we built MANOVA models, using gender, amount of debt, or prior urology clerkship as the explanatory variables.

There were two variables with a marginally significant ( p ≤ 0.10) association with condoms use at last sex: having sex with more than one sexual partner (AOR 3.38; 95% CI 0.87, 13.10) and speaking to at least one sex partner about HIV testing (AOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.14, 1.02).

The light grey shading on Figure 3b indicates that treatment differences in Q-TWiST were either significant ( P⩽ 0.05) or marginally significant (0.05< P <0.1) for most utility combinations, with the exception of the left-bottom corner with TOX and REL utilities both <0.2.

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

The frequency effect was marginally significant ( p < 0.1) and we observed an effect of ordinal position ( p < 0.05).

Demographic, comorbidity, clinical, and severity variables that showed at least marginally significant differences ( P ≤ 0.10) between type 2 diabetes and acute myocardial infarction patients, as well as variables considered important based on clinical judgment, were included as potential confounders in the multivariate analyses.

Effects on self-assessed physical health status were small and marginally significant ( p = 0.10) after the intervention: d = 0.09; 95% CI [−0.02, 0.20], and insignificant at follow-up.

However, in the case of arousal (χ 2 =5.2, P=0.074), the dominance subscale (χ 2 =5.14, P=0.076), and the number of intrusive memories (χ 2 =5.35, P=0.069), a marginally significant difference between groups was found (0.05<P<0.10).

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.

They observed linear inverse associations between AD and vegetable fat ( p = 0.002), and, after further adjustment for other types of fat, marginally significant associations with intake of omega-6 polyunsaturated fat ( p = 0.10 for trend) and monounsaturated fat ( p = 0.10 for trend).

Results were considered significant when P < .05 and marginally significant when P < .10.

At average levels of baseline self-compassion, participants demonstrated a marginally significant decrease from pre- to post-intervention in depression ( B = −0.02, p = 0.10).

Additionally, while results at AUMC indicated a marginally significant decrease in CMT in the hypertension cohort compared with the control cohort during the follow-up period (all P <0.1), no significant differences were observed at SNUBH.

All results with α < 0.05 were accepted as statistically significant; marginally significant results ( p < 0.1; i.e., α < 0.10) are also mentioned.

However, due to modest sample size, we also interpret marginally significant effects of P ≤ 0.10.

10.7717/peerj.15387/supp-5 Table S4 Summary of the GLMM of the effect of adaptive training on test scores Results for the delayed test were marginally significant. p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 Click here for additional data file. 10.7717/peerj.15387/supp-6 Table S5 Summary of the Wald test for differences in posttest scores between groups . p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Click here for additional data file. 10.7717/peerj.15387/supp-7 Tab

The moderating effects were statistically significant if the standardized coefficients of the interaction terms were significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10).