“marginally significant”

All statistically marginally significant prognostic factors which identified by univariate analysis ( P < 0.1) were entered into a Cox proportion hazards regression model with forward stepwise (Likelihood ratio) to identify independent predictors of VAP event.

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.

We found a marginally significant ( p < .10) negative association between the muffinhead advertisement and the long-term expectation scale, indicating a higher receptivity to Muffinhead was associated with lower long-term expectations.

A marginally significant relationship (p≤0.1) was found between high stress at work and sICAM-1 (9% higher levels), and this relationship was unchanged by the addition of health behaviors ( Table 2 ).

The longitudinal association between extraversion and sick leave days was marginally significant ( p < 0.10).

A marginally significant association ( p < 0.10) was found for non-small cell carcinoma (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99–1.11).

Starting with the term having the highest p-value, we sequentially removed non-significant terms until all remaining predictors had at least a marginally significant effect on the magnitude of latitudinal shift (i.e., P -value ≤ 0.1).

There were marginally significant 3-way interactions among the WMH quintiles, stroke subtypes, and stroke severity ( p = 0.10).

Household income significantly predicted increased levels of cooperation, with high-income individuals donating 84 p more than low-income individuals (β = 0.84 [0.09; 1.59], p < 0.05; Table S4 and Figure 2 ) People experienced a marginally significant increase in the feelings of sectarian threat during the riots, compared to before and after the riots (β = 0.25 [−0.03, 0.52], p < 0.1; Table S5 ).

(2018) find that left-hand 2D:4D is statistically significantly negatively related to men’s self-employment ( p < .01), whereas for women they report a “marginally significant” negative relation ( p < .10).

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

The results were considered significant if p < 0.05 and marginally significant if p < 0.10.

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).

The same analysis with accuracy as dependent variable revealed a main effect of Location ( F = 5.2, p < 0.05; actual more accurate than mirror), a marginally significant effect of Condition ( F = 4.5, p < 0.1; spatiotopic more accurate than retinotopic) and no interaction between Location and Condition ( F < 1).

Other marginally significant ( p < 0.1) pairwise comparisons were also evidenced for Co-Production.

This effect was significant for extremely negative images (5.62), t (20) = 2.88, p < .01, and marginally significant for moderately negative images (3.02), t (20) = 1.75, p < .10.

There was also a marginally significant effect for Condition ( F (3,87) = 2.36, P < 0.10).

The interactions between ethnicity and the proportion of ethnic minorities in classes of .25–.50 were marginally significant (.25, p < .10).

Both the linear (PSW) and quadratic (PSW 2 ) terms are marginally significant (p < 0.1), indicating their potential relevance in predicting Flexural Strength.

], 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).

Human Nature For HN traits, there was a significant main effects of Player, F (1, 216) = 85.14, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.28, as well as a marginally significant main effect of Condition, F (1, 216) = 2.79, p = 0.10, η 2 = 0.01.

While the association in the unadjusted model (Model 1) was marginally significant for the continuous variable (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.97–1.52; P = 0.100), it became statistically significant in Model 2 (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.03–1.67; P = 0.028) and reached its strongest significance in the fully adjusted Model 3 (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.14–2.04; P = 0.005).

As would be expected, stunting rates are higher when the samples are restricted to older children, but the only notable impact on the changes is that the marginally significant (p < 0.1) estimated 3.5 percentage point fall in stunting in Rwanda gains slightly in magnitude but loses significance. 3.2.

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

There was a significant direct effect from global trait EI to major satisfaction (β = 0.181, p < 0.05), and a marginally significant direct effect from global trait EI to procrastination (β = –0.117, p < 0.10).