“near-significant”

Moderated regression models were fitted; significant (p<.05) and near-significant (p<.10) interactions were followed by simple slope analyses.

Associations between disease duration and genus-level abundance were also evident, with significant ( p < 0.05) or near-significant ( p < 0.10) differences in 6 of the top 21 genera, including Propionibacterium , Salmonella , and Enterobacter (Fig. 2 b; Additional file 4 : Table S4).

Statistical analysis Univariate analyses were performed to assess the influence of stratifying factors on clinical CTV coverage by AID-based plans and geometric performance, and subsequent multivariate regressions including significant or near-significant factors (p <= 0.1) from univariate analyses were then performed.

Additionally, PFKFB3 showed a near-significant relationship with OS in stage III and female subgroups ( P < 0.1).

The near-significant ( p = 0.1) contribution of parity to the monthly models of the effect of hour for BL18R, BL15R and ST18R, plus the near-significant contribution of age to the June model of BL15R and the near-significant effect of hour on BL18R and ST18R probably excludes these for diagnostic use.

Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed adjusting for variables with significant and near-significant p -values on univariable analysis ( p ≤ .1) and were performed for both the whole cohort and stratified by era.

The statistical power to find an association of at least the same strength as that reported from the Överkalix studies for each of their ten significant ( p < 0.05) or near-significant ( p <0.10) results is shown in Supplementary Table 7 .

The multivariate analysis using both significant and near-significant variables (up to P = 0.1 in the univariate analysis) showed that pERK + /pAkt − CTCs remained an independent factor associated with a good prognosis (hazard ratio = 9.389, P < 0.01).

In our independent validation cohort (12 JMML patients and 6 PN), significant and near-significant (P ≤ 0.1) overexpression was confirmed for 10 and 4 lncRNAs respectively (31%) (Supplemental Figure S1 ).

were increased by ginseng polysaccharides or oligofructose treatments with significant ( p < 0.05) or near-significant (0.05 < p < 0.1) differences compared with the model group ( Fig. 2c ).

The correlation in C3 −/− mice was near-significant but weak ( R 2 = 0.10, P = 0.1), possibly due to the excessive GI burden combined with the general lack of containment upon dissemination to the liver.

Candidate predictors included baseline biomechanical parameters that showed significant or near-significant associations in univariable analyses ( p < 0.10) and/or were considered clinically relevant.

Significant and near-significant (p<0.10) differences were then assessed further for independence in sequentially adjusted linear regression models: adjusting first for demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity); next for retinopathy, neuropathy and BMI; next for blood pressure and antihypertensive medication; and finally for HbA1c.

Here we found a near-significant interaction term for 24-h urine volume and use of thiazides (P = 0.1): in patients with urine volume <2200 mL ( n = 226), use of thiazides was associated with a lower risk of the composite kidney endpoint [HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.16–0.77); P = 0.009], while there was no association in patients with urine volume >2200 mL [ n = 238; HR 1.48 (95% CI 0.75–2.91); P = 0.3].

In order to streamline the model and focus on the most meaningful relationships, only significant and near-significant (i.e., 0.05 < p < 0.10) effects from Model 1 in Model 2 were retained (see Figure 2 ).

In the following we report only significant, or near-significant results from the ANOVA (p<0.1); for all results see Table 1 .

By contrast, marigold treated tomatoes experienced a near-significant reduction in fruit weight per plant compared to the control ( p = 0.100) and a significantly lighter fruit weight than the limonene treatment ( p = 0.014).

Near-significant trends toward lower latencies to fall were detected for En2 +/− mice as compared to +/+ on these trials ( p <0.10 for each comparison).

P values indicated on figures are for the significant (P<0.05) or near-significant (0.05<P<0.1) factor that has been plotted.

Significant differences were declared at p ≤ 0.05 whereas near-significant trends were considered at 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.

Significant differences are indicated in the figures as follows: * P <0.05; ** P <0.01; *** P <0.001; # P <0.05; ## P <0.01; ### P <0.001; † P <0.05. Near-significant differences that showed a trend (0.05< P <0.1) are also indicated in the Figures.

(2005) openness measure ( p = 0.03) and a near-significant predictor of the McCrae (2002) openness measure ( p = 0.10).

Covariates were chosen among expected major risk factors for fragility fractures, and significant or near-significant ( P < 0.10) parameters in simple correlations.

Notably, other features such as number of branches and number of slab voxels had near-significant increases in the sham group (0.05 < p < 0.1). 2.3.

We found 14 variables with significant ( p ≤ 0.05) or near-significant p values (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1) ( Table 2 ).