“marginally significant”

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

After logistic regression, 3 “true or false”-response questions related to history of depression in self and family history appeared marginally significant (logistic regression, FDR-corrected p < 0.1), with a self-reported “true” response to a “family history of depression” showing a marginal association with constipation (logistic regression, FDR-corrected <0.1), a self-reported “true” response to a “sibling history of depression” showing a significant association with diarrhea (logistic regression, FDR-corrected <0.05), and a self-reported “true” response to “recent ailments in self-history of depression” showing a marginal association with low-normal BMF (logistic regression, FDR-corrected <0.1).

After adjusting for DunedinPACE, all previously observed significant associations remain at least marginally significant (all p < 0.10).

When further adjusted for gynecology-related factors (Model 3), the association between moderate/severe dysmenorrhea and a higher level of psychological distress was marginally significant (β = 1.548, p < 0.10), and moderate/severe psychological symptoms of PMS were significantly associated with a higher level of psychological distress (β = 3.978, p < 0.001).

Statistical significance was set at 5% and marginally significant accepted for p < 0.1.

Although not of primary interest here, we note that in the analyses reported above, the relationship of survival to age at treatment start was positive and marginally significant ( p < 0.10 for onset of clinical signs to NAP, p < 0.05 for onset of clinical signs to time of euthanasia, p < 0.10 for start of treatment to NAP, and p < 0.10 for start of treatment to time of euthanasia).

Physical function and physical composite were marginally significant (p<0.10).

For school-based involvement, however, mothers working non-standard hours had greater levels than those working standard hours ( b = 1.177), though the difference was marginally significant ( p < 0.1).

Initially univariate logistic regressions were analysed to identify any significant or marginally significant relationships (using p<.10 as the inclusion criterion).

Fisher's Z-test showed that the difference of the correlation coefficients between patients and controls was marginally significant for the right amygdala (z=-1.27, p=0.1) and not significant for the left amygdala (z=-0.87, p=0.19).

A marginally significant negative correlation was found between C1-INH activity levels and severity scores ( p = 0.1, r = –0.515).

These ethnic differences are marginally significant ( p < .10).

001); a marginally significant change in the standard deviations suggests that some departments saw greater declines than others ( Levene statistic = 2 . 91 , p < . 10) .

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.

We see no overall differential attrition between AWH-E and control communities for either gender, and see only a small and marginally significant increase in the likelihood of surveying girls in the treatment as compared to the control groups in South Gondar (3.5 percentage points, p < 0.1).

This effect was however marginally significant among boys ( p <0.1).

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

Differences were considered significant if P < 0.05 and marginally significant if P < 0.10.

Results were considered to be statistically significant when p < 0.05 and marginally significant when 0.05 < p < 0.10.

A marginally significant correlation was also found in the alignment of State #3 ( r (54) = 0.22, p = 0.10).

Simple effects analyses indicated that Emoji Condition was significant for opinions, F (2, 658.38) = 8.27, and request refusals, F (2, 653.96) = 8.95 and marginally significant for disclosures, F (2, 731.30) = 2.32, p < .10.

Statistical Analysis Statistical analyses were performed using R statistical software (version 3.6.1, R Foundation, https://www.r-project.org/ accessed on 17 May 2022), where a p -value (after Bonferroni corrections for pairwise comparisons using the t -test) of < 0.05 was considered significant ( p < 0.001 presented as **, 0.001 ≤ p < 0.05 as *), 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1 as marginally significant (presented as #) and p ≥ 0.1 as nonsignificant (presented as ns).

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no statistically significant differences between ICDAS II scores and light-induced fluorescence device scores ( p = 0.4) and marginally significant differences between ICDAS II scores and laser-induced fluorescence device scores ( p = 0.1).

In addition, in Model 3 the influence of an “integration” ethnic orientation went from non-significant to marginally significant (p < .10) and the influence of an “attenuation” ethnic orientation went from significant at p < .05 to non-significant.

In comparison, the CFLI group showed significant improvement between pre- and post-test on two of the seven measures, narrative macrostructure and clausal density, with large effect sizes for both measures ( r = 0.90 and 0.91, respectively, both p = 0.04), and a large and marginally significant gain for the ALL Listening Comprehension subtest ( r = 0.73, p = 0.10).