Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally non-significant”

1,494 sentences · 1,494 papers · 1,908 search hits before verification

In the literature

marginally non-significantP = 0.06751.4× alpha
Post-intervention, the RODL group exhibited a significantly higher dry fecal fat concentration (58.48 ± 29.95 mg/g) than the placebo group (39.54 ± 21.39 mg/g; P = 0.0025, Wilcoxon), although the within-group change in the RODL group was marginally non-significant ( P = 0.0675; Fig. 4E ).
marginally non-significantp = .0681.4× alpha
3.2 Channels of interest One-way MANOVA for absolute theta power at rest with subject group (apathetic PD, non-apathetic PD, and healthy control subjects) as the independent variable and each of the nine channels (Cz, C4, CP5, CP1, CPz, CP2, CP6, Pz, and P4) as a dependent variable showed a marginally non-significant difference between subject groups ( F (2,34) = 1.70, p = .068; Pillai's Trace = 0.724, partial η 2 = 0.362).
marginally non-significantp = 0.0681.4× alpha
Stimulation of rFEF with an ipsilateral reference electrode The ANOVA with the factors of Session (1, 2) and Block (1–5) revealed a marginally non-significant main effect of Session ( p = 0.068, with search times slower in Session 1: M = 870.21, SE = 96.7; compared to the Session 2: M = 804.34, SE = 74.3).
marginally non-significantP = 0.0681.4× alpha
According to the Tukey post-hoc test applied on the marginally non-significant Sex × Treatment interaction ( F 2,122 = 2.786; P = 0.068), males exposed to toad scent had greater latency to unroll than males exposed to rabbit scent and to water, and than females exposed to water, with every other pairwise comparison being non-significant ( Table 1 ; Fig. 1 ).
marginally non-significantP = 0.0681.4× alpha
We found no support for an association between Campylobacter prevalence and sampling date in adults ( W = 0.11, df = 1, P = 0.74), but in nestlings, this relationship was only marginally non-significant ( W = 3.32, df = 1, P = 0.068), indicating a trend for a decreasing prevalence with date (β = -0.059 ± 0.029).
marginally non-significantp = 0.0681.4× alpha
Regarding retinal hemodynamic parameters, no statistically significant differences were detected between active and inactive patients in arterial and venous blood flow velocity (BFVA and BFVV), arterial and venous retinal blood flow (RBFA and RBFV), or arterial and venous vessel diameter (DA and DV, all p > 0.05), although retinal venous blood flow (RBFV) showed a marginally non-significant trend toward higher values in the active group (β = 6.09, 95% CI: −0.47 to 12.65, p = 0.068).
marginally non-significantp = 0.0691.4× alpha
Similarly, for CFDDS, the highest NPS group showed significantly increased odds in the crude model (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.35–3.95, p = 0.003) and Model 1 (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.10–3.38, p = 0.024), although the association became marginally non-significant in the fully adjusted model (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.95–3.34, p = 0.069).
marginally non-significantP = 0.0691.4× alpha
Winsorizing the data did not qualitatively alter the results (in the winsorized analysis, mating status had a significant effect on fighting duration (Dev 1, 127 = 13.413, P < 0.001), egg production capability was marginally non-significant (Dev 1, 126 = 1.364, P = 0.069), and there was no interaction between egg production capability and mating status (Dev 1, 125 = 0.124, P = 0.583).