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 = 0.0531.1× alphagold
Insomnia was significantly predicted by several covariates, including negative associations with age (β = −0.033, p = 0.037), current living situation (β = −0.098, p < 0.001), income level (β = −0.040, p = 0.008), and employment status (β = −0.093, p < 0.001), as well as positive associations with number of live births (marginally significant, β = 0.036, p = 0.053), expected mode of delivery (β = 0.063, p = 0.013), and living arrangements (“who do you live with?”) (β = 0.094, p < 0.001); other covariates (gestational age, pregnancy status, marital status, geographical location, education attainment, and residential area) showed no significant effects.
marginally significantp = 0.0531.1× alphagold
9.2% respectively). Oncological outcomes (OS, CSS) In stage II prostate cancer, significantly better OS is observed in the HIFU group compared with the RT group before IPTW adjustment ( p = 0.001), but the significance is marginally significant after IPTW adjustment ( p = 0.053).
marginally significantp = 0.0531.1× alphagold
There was a marginally significant effect of ratio, F (2, 104) = 3.02, p = 0.053, The Developing Mental Number Line: Does Its Directionality Relate to 5- to 7-Year-Old Children’s Mathematical Abilities? = 0.055, and a linear contrast analysis revealed a statistically significant linear trend, F (1, 55) = 4.45, p = 0.040, η p 2 = 0.079, such that performance improved as ratio decreased (e.g., better performance for a ratio of 4:7 than 4:5), as expected.
marginally significantp=0.0531.1× alphagold
Results showed that patients with ACS following the experimental strategy had a lower risk of the primary endpoint (2.95% versus 5.26%; HR 0.55; 95% CI [0.35–0.89]; p=0.014; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.032), driven by a lower risk of all-cause mortality (2.19% versus 4.28%; HR 0.51; 95% CI [0.30–0.87]; p=0.013; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.021), as well as a marginally significant reduced risk of bleeding (HR 0.58; 95% CI [0.33–1.01]; p=0.053; p for interaction with stable CAD patients = 0.334) compared with patients receiving the reference regimen.[ 19 ] In the same direction, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study, a post-hoc analysis of the TWILIGHT trial, evaluated the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy compared to DAPT with aspirin plus ticagrelor in 2,342 event-free patients who had completed 3 months of DAPT.