Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally non-significant”

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

In the literature

In multivariate analysis, the association with early-onset infection demonstrated a similar magnitude of effect but was marginally non-significant ( β: 0.75, 95% CI: − 0.02-1.52, p value :0.055), while the effect of pulmonary hypertension was markedly attenuated ( β: 0.47, 95% CI: − 0.63-1.56, p value :0.388) (Table 6 ).
Note that, had we based inference on NHT-SWR only, this relationship with forest crop-plots would have gone undetected and unreported ( Table 1 ): the ‘best’ SWR model implicitly estimates [20] a zero effect for this covariate, even after adjustment, whereas MMI estimates a positive, marginally non-significant effect on the risk of MAYV seropositivity ( Table 7 , Figure 2 ).
If we instead allow the effect to differ between viruses, the negative effect of genetic distance from the natural host on replication is greatest for DObsSV ( Figure 2 ; slope: γ O = −4.03; 95% CI = −6.11, −0.94; P MCMC = 0.005), is smaller and only marginally non-significant for DAffSV ( Figure 2 ; slope: γ A = −1.82; 95% CI = −3.99, 0.37; P MCMC = 0.095), and not significant for DMelSV ( Figure 2 ; slope: γ M = −0.47; 95% CI = −3.06, 1.94; P MCMC = 0.692).
Whilst maintaining the age adjustment, a minimal model was obtained containing daily bathing (OR 16.7, 95% CI 2.2–125.8; p < 0.01) and bathing in the daytime (OR 12.7, 95% CI 1.6–103.7; p = 0.02), both previously significant in the full multivariate model, and also washing clothes in the daytime (OR 10.9, 95% CI 1.5–77.3; p = 0.02), previously marginally non-significant.
Page 12, line 269 - I would remove the first sentence, the second says something very similar but acknowledges that alternative findings would be possible Method Page 13, line 298 - socioeconomic? Page 14, Table 2 - where ES=0.00, should it not be ES<0.01? Results General - I am wondering why median and not mean reaction time was analysed here, is this common practice for this task Page 18, line 419 - if at all, I would call this marginally non-significant, especially given the Bayesian statistics - in general, it appears that the data cannot provide consistent support for alerting differences in either case Paragraph starting page 19 , line 426 - ‘=‘ signs missing for partial eta squared and once again I find < 0.01 more meaningful than = 0.00 Page