Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginal significance”

5,069 sentences · 5,069 papers · 6,913 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.07

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

marginal significanceP = 0.0621.2× alphagold
After adjusting for related confounders, at 6 months of age, compared with the control group, the social-emotional scores from the ASQ assessment showed an increase of 4.36 (95 % CI: 1.55, 7.18) points ( P = 0.003) in the high stress group and an increase of 4.62 (95 % CI: −0.22, 9.45) points (at marginal significance, P = 0.062) in the combined exposure group.
marginal significancep = .0621.2× alphagold
A significant partial correlation was found in the left caudate ( R = −.65, p = .0061), as well as a marginal significance in the left putamen ( R = −.48, p = .062; Fig. 3 ). 4 Discussion In this study, we originally used the FOCA metric on resting‐state fMRI to spatiotemporally investigate the alterations of regional spontaneous activity in FLE patients.
marginal significanceP = 0.0621.2× alphagold
The meta-analysis of IPW-adjusted estimates confirmed the inverted U-shaped pattern, with 8 h sleep significantly associated with poorer cognition (β = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.03, P = 0.008), while 9 h and ≥ 10 h showed negative associations with marginal significance after FDR correction (both P = 0.062).
marginal significancep = 0.06251.3× alphagold
However, several other indicators, such as the Acceptability Rating Scale (ARS) ( p = 0.0625, r = 1.0), the System Usability Scale (SUS) ( p = 0.0625, r = 1.0), and the psychosocial impact (PIADS), showed marginal significance ( p = 0.0625, r = 1.0) favoring the BCI-based approach.
marginal significancep = 0.06261.3× alphagold
The KEGG pathway for biosynthesis of secondary metabolites was upregulated with a high level of significance in the direct, high treatment ( Figures 5 , 7 , p < 0.001; Supplementary Figure 4 ) and was also upregulated with marginal significance in the direct, low treatment ( Supplementary Table 4 , p = 0.0626).
marginal significanceP =0.0631.3× alphagold
The overall CVAE in a group of female patients with breast cancer who had exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors was slightly higher than for those treated with anthracyclines, with marginal significance (35.9 versus 28.5 per 100 person‐years; P =0.063; Table 2 ); however, there was no statistical difference between these 2 groups in the competing risk analysis (Figure 2A ).
marginal significancep = 0.0631.3× alphagold
Although some correlations approached marginal significance (e.g., CHEQ Grip Efficiency and community participation frequency, ρ = − 0.23, p = 0.063; CHEQ Feeling Bothered and community participation frequency, ρ = − 0.21, p = 0.097), none reached the conventional threshold for statistical significance ( p ≤ 0.05).