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 = 0.081.6× alphagold
showed a trendp = 0.081.6× alpha
When stratified by cancer type, early-onset Hispanic/Latino patients with colon adenocarcinoma showed a trend toward marginal significance in WNT pathway alterations compared to early-onset NHW patients (93.3% vs. 69%, p = 0.08), suggesting potential ethnic-specific variations in this pathway for colon cancer ( Table S4 ).
marginal significancep = .081.6× alphagold
as well as in the perception task (Extensive Set, r s = .41, p <.001 and Intensive Set, r s = .35, p <.005); 3) the smaller the ER in the production task for the Intensive Set ( r s = .27, p <.05), and in the perception task (Extensive Set, r s = .17, p = .09, and Intensive Set, r s = .18, p = .08, marginal significance).
marginal significanceP = 0.0801.6× alphagold
The correlation coefficients were higher for FDT 10-2 than for FDT 24-2 with marginal significance globally and in the superior and superonasal sectors ( P = 0.080, 0.071, and 0.070, respectively) and with statistical significance in the inferior and inferonasal sectors ( P = 0.011 and 0.005, respectively).
marginal significanceP = 0.081.6× alphagold
In primary–hyperparasitoid webs, species richness and evenness of primary parasitoids and hyperparasitoids increased over time in all fields (“Week” F 1,18 = 20.71, P < 0.001; F 1,19 = 9.57, P = 0.006; F 1,20 = 10.81, P = 0.004; F 1,22 = 4.15, P = 0.054, respectively), and hyperparasitoid species richness had (with marginal significance) higher values in fields with low AI (“AI” F 1,6 = 4.35, P = 0.08).
marginal significancep = 0.081.6× alphagold
Correlations between groups differed by marginal significance for the composite measure ( z = −1.73, p = 0.08) and reaction times ( z = −1.6, p = 0.09), indicating a different relationship between implicit and explicit emotion recognition performance in the NT as compared to the ASD group (see Figure 5 for group specific scatter plots of the composite measure correlation).
marginal significanceP = 0.0801.6× alphagold
After taking the variability in intercepts into account in the GEE model, critical incident stress (0.03, SE = 0.01, P < 0.001), post‐traumatic stress (0.03, SE = 0.01, P = 0.006), and fatigue (0.13, SE = 0.06, P = 0.021) still predicted injuries and exposures; the effect of organizational stress was reduced to marginal significance (0.02, SE = 0.01, P = 0.080).