Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally significant”

26,083 sentences · 26,083 papers · 36,483 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p>=0.1

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

marginally significantp = 0.051.0× alphagold
The intervention period of less than 6 weeks improved the response time to a certain extent, showing a marginally significant effect (SMD = −0.68, p = 0.05), while the intervention period exceeding 6 weeks did not make the response time reach statistical significance (SMD = −1.03, p > 0.07).
marginally significantP = 0.051.0× alphagold
A marginally significant association was found in retrospective cohorts (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.00–3.17, P = 0.05, I 2 = 91%), whereas no significant associations were identified in women aged >32 years (OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 0.89–4.83, P = 0.09, I 2 = 99%) or small-sample studies (<1,000 participants, OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.54–5.22, P = 0.37, I 2 = 69%).
marginally significantP = 0.051.0× alphagold
We did observe a marginally significant interaction between soil type and sterilization method ( F 1,30 = 2, R 2 = 0.04, P = 0.05), and a three-way interaction between soil type, sterilization method, and wash treatment ( F 1,30 = 2, R 2 = 0.04, P = 0.05), but they only explained a minor part of the composition variance ( R 2 = 0.04).
marginally significantP = .0501.0× alphagold
Hierarchical logistic regression models, adjusting for significant (age, P < .05) or marginally significant (sex and education, P = .050 and P = .053, respectively) covariates, assessed the biomarkers’ contribution to explain GCF deficit or AUD presence ( supplementary Methods 1.7 ), alongside receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
marginally significantP =.051.0× alphagold
A further simple-slope analysis revealed that, for the low-involvement group, the positive predictive effect of exposure to vulnerable physician portrayals on overall evaluations was marginally significant (simple slope=0.10; SE 0.05; P =.05) and the evaluations mediated the relationship between exposure to vulnerable physician portrayals and trust in physicians; the indirect effect was 0.08 (95% CI 0.002-0.17).
marginally significantp < 0.051.0× alphagold
A similar trend was observed for the Tinetti test, with marginally significant increases between T0 and T5 [ t (30) = 2.129; p < 0.05; d = 0.376] and between T0 and T17 [ t (30) = 2.037; p < 0.05; d = 0.438], which were no longer significant after the Bonferroni adjustment; again no difference was observed between T5 and T17.
marginally significantp = 0.051.0× alphagold
This decline was statistically significant ( p < 0.05) in 9/10 of the villages with the highest prevalence in 2011 and was marginally significant ( p = 0.05) in the remaining high prevalence village (Table 1 ).
marginally significantp = 0.051.0× alphagold
In addition, there were main effects of Source ( F 1,38 = 5.33, p = 0.03; indicating higher accuracy for self than other conditions) and Distortion ( F 1,38 = 54.82, p < 0.001; indicating higher accuracy for undistorted than distorted conditions), and a marginally significant Diagnosis × Source × Distortion interaction ( F 1,38 = 4.08, p = 0.05).
marginally significantP = 0.051.0× alphagold
The interaction of the BCKA/BCAA ratio with sex was marginally significant ( P = 0.05); sex-stratified analysis then revealed that BCKA/BCAA was associated with steatosis grade in female participants (OR [95% CI], 1.7 [1.2–2.3], P = 0.002), but the association was completely absent in the male cohort (OR [95% CI], 1.0 [0.7–1.5], P = 0.9) ( Supplemental Figure 1 ).