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 < 1.25E-020.3× alphagold
In the sensitivity analyses using clumping of SNPs, the susceptibility to asthma in the female moderate-to-severe cases was marginally significant, because the weighted median regression failed to satisfy the threshold by Bonferroni correction ( P < 1.25E-02, 0.05/4) ( Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 8 ).
marginally significantp = 0.0130.3× alphagold
Because the allelic frequencies of CLOCK rs1801260 showed marginally significant differences between the two groups, the authors proceeded with a haplotype analysis of rs1801260-rs2412646, which showed an overall significant difference of p = 0.013.
marginally significantP = 0.0130.3× alphagold
Effects of climate variation on flowering phenology For temperature, model selection based on likelihood ratio tests identified highly to marginally significant effects of both spatial variation ( χ = 14.45, df = 5, P = 0.013) and inter‐annual variation ( χ = 10.67, df = 5, P = 0.058) on specimen collection dates.
marginally significantp = 0.0130.3× alphagold
However, exploratory ANCOVA analysis using body mass index, leukocyte number, age, current polarity and bipolar subtype as covariables revealed significant differences between the genotypes in the rs1205 SNP, which remained marginally significant even after correcting for multiple comparison [ANCOVA, F (2, 710) = 1.023, p = 0.013].
marginally significantp = 0.0130.3× alphagold
In the retained path model for classical psychopathy factors ( Figure 1B - Model 2B), there were still two distinct empathy profiles for primary psychopathy (significant affective impairment, β = −0.255, p < 0.001, and marginally significant cognitive empathy deficits, β = −0.125, p = 0.013) and secondary psychopathy (negative association with cognitive empathy, β = −0.209, p < 0.001 and positive relation with the affective domain, β = 0.111, p = 0.006), although alexithymia was positively related to both factors (β = 0.128, p = 0.005 and β = 0.402, p < 0.001, respectively).
marginally significantP = 0.0130.3× alphagold
However, after fully adjusting for confounding factors (Model 3), while cardiovascular mortality risk remained elevated (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00–1.23; P = 0.042), the overall risk of all-cause mortality associated with clinical obesity shifted to a marginally significant inverse relationship (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.99; P = 0.013) compared to the no obesity group.
marginally significantP = 0.0130.3× alphagold
Incubation temperature had a significant (or marginally significant, after the Bonferroni correction) effect on apparent food consumption in all three trials (novel environment: P = 0.013, Fig 2A , Supplementary Table S6 ; familiar environment: P < 0.0001, Fig 2B , Supplementary Table S7 ; novel object: P < 0.0001, Fig. 2C , Supplementary Table S8 ) where, in all cases, given the same feeding behavior, high temperature-incubated ducklings consumed more food during a trial than low temperature-incubated ducklings.
marginally significantP = 0.0140.3× alphagold
Gene-expression differences between chromosome-level clusters were marginally significant (F 2,28 = 4.99 and P = 0.014), with cluster IV-β having the highest mean expression and IV-α the lowest (mean expression and SE for chromosome II: 2c343.4 ± 423 FPKM, chromosome IV-α: 1,263.3 ± 276 FPKM, and chromosome IV-β: 3150.5 ± 406).
marginally significantP = 0.0140.3× alphagold
Stratified analysis showed a significant association between adherence to the DASH diet and risk of breast cancer in case-control studies (RR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27–0.89, P = 0.019), and a marginally significant association in prospective cohort studies (RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86–0.98, P = 0.014), respectively.
marginally significantP = 0.0140.3× alphagold
Surprisingly, we found a main effect of location, F (3, 39) = 4.34, P = 0.010, η p 2 = 0.25, 95% CI η = [0.02, 0.41], which was driven by a lower postsaccadic contrast sensitivity after upward saccades (15.00 ± 3.16) compared to the other directions [rightward: 29.49 ± 4.76; P = 0.015, 95% CI = (0.91, 28.05); leftward: 26.23 ± 3.64; P = 0.054, 95% CI = (−2.34, 24.80), marginally significant; downward: 30.85 ± 2.77; P = 0.014, 95% CI = (2.28, 29.42)] ( Fig. 4 ).