Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally non-significant”

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

In the literature

Comparison of the numerical differences in prediction accuracy across feature sets revealed a similar pattern to the ML classification results: prediction accuracy was clearly non-significant for the “sMRI subcortex” model, marginally non-significant for the “sMRI only” model and clearly significant for the “restFC only” model 5 .
Results After seven days of intervention, the mean increase from baseline in the Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score was significantly higher in the curcumin compared with the placebo group ( P -value: 0.028), while the reduction in the APACHE-II score in the curcumin group was greater than that the placebo group in a marginally non-significant fashion ( P -value: 0.055).
Subgroup analysis by dialysis or non-dialysis status indicated that the risk of SAEs was statistically significant in the anemic CKD patient group not receiving dialysis (pooled OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01–1.30; I 2 = 0.0%) ( Figure 4 a), while it was marginally non-significant in the dialysis patient group (pooled OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.99–1.26; I 2 = 0.0%) ( Figure 4 a).
In a binomial GLMM across n = 182 males from 10 isolines, the four-way interaction was not statistically significant ( β = 1.937 ± 1.659, Z = 1.168, p = 0.243), but day again contributed to several interactions (though some marginally non-significant; electronic supplementary material, table S19).
There was a marginally non-significant tendency for first litters of iteroparous females to develop more slowly than litters of semelparous females (age at eye opening 66±0.8 days in first litters, 64±0.8 days in both second litters and offspring of semelparous mothers; overall model: F 2,29 = 1.7, P = 0.19, difference in age at eye opening between litters with semelparous mothers and first litters of iteroparous mothers: t = −1.9, df = 29, P = 0.07; difference between first and second litters of iteroparous mothers t = −1.2, df = 29, P = 0.24).
The main effect of treatment was not significant, but there was a marginally non-significant interaction between valence and treatment on latency to probe, that occurred because birds from low-competition nests were faster to probe Near POS cues than birds from high-competition nests (GLMM: B = 0.20 ± 0.10, X 2 (1) = 3.79, p = 0.052; Fig 1B ).Thus, when overall speed is controlled for, as predicted, there is some evidence, albeit marginally non-significant, that birds from small broods had a higher expectation of reward in the face of ambiguous information.