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 < 0.102.0× alpha
S2 Fig Piecewise-path analysis plot for all schistosome intermediate host snails with significant ( p < 0.05) pathways as black arrows, marginally non-significant ( p < 0.10) pathways as gray arrows, and standardized coefficients provided in boxes on each pathway.
marginally non-significantp values ≤0.102.0× alpha
p values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant, while marginally non-significant values ( p values ≤0.10) are also indicated. 3 Results 3.1 Maternal behavior time scans 3.1.1 Nursing Although PFOA dams did not differ in the average amount of time spent nursing ( t = 0.95, p = 0.35; Figure 2A ) the posture of nursing differed.
An analogous causal estimate was derived regardless of which IV was removed; however, there were five IVs (FEV 1 model = two outlier single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) , FVC model = four outlier SNPs [two outlier SNPs shared]) for which the estimate was marginally non-significant after exclusion (maximum p=0.11, IVW with multiplicative random effects).
marginally non-significantp = 0.122.4× alpha
For those taxonomic groups found consistently within both the infauna and epifauna, namely the amphipods and isopods (n = 22 samples), the difference in terms of δ 13 C, when accounting for site-specific variability as a random intercept in the LMM model, was marginally non-significant (infauna respective to epifauna: C = −1.7 ± 1.0 SE; t = −1.6; p = 0.12).
marginally non-significantp =0.122.4× alpha
Linear trends (estimating the average slopes of curves in Figure 1 ) shifted from negative after embryogenesis at 18°C to positive after embryogenesis at 22°C ( Figure 2A ), and differed significantly between 18°C and both of the other temperatures (the contrast between 20 and 22°C was marginally non-significant at p =0.12; Figure 2D ).
marginally non-significantp = 0.1232.5× alpha
Predictive Performance of δV1 and δL1 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated superior predictive accuracy with δV1 (AUC = 0.745) (95% CI, 0.642–0.847) than with δL1 (AUC = 0.634) (95% CI, 0.512–0.757), though the difference was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.123) ( Figure 3 ).