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 = 0.0551.1× alphagold
This difference was significant for Intensity (Means: 4.13 and 3.58, t (40) = 4.84, P < 0.0001), Valence (Means: 5.38 and 4.74, t (40) = 6.19, P < 0.0001), Behavioral Contagion (Means: 3.91 and 3.43, t (40) = 3.32, P < 0.005) and Emotional Contagion (Means: 4.13 and 3.58, t (40) = 6.34, P < 0.0001), and marginally significant for Arousal (Means: 3.60 and 3.39, t (32) = 2.00, P = 0.055; df modified for nonequal variance).
marginally significantp=0.0551.1× alphagold
In the model which accounted for the time-to-first event, single use of expedited programmes correlated inversely to the chance of safety events (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; p=0.009), while triple or more use had marginally significant higher risk (adjusted HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.53; p=0.055).
marginally significantp = 0.05511.1× alphagold
1 after decomposing and analyzing the five domains of the EQ-5D index after dichotomizing into “no problem” or “any problems,” an increasing tendency of “no problem” was found in the quarantined group in all dimensions except psychological status, although it was not significant in “Self-care” and marginally significant in “Usual activities” (p = 0.0551).
marginally significantp = 0.05541.1× alphagold
When we examined the correlation between the residuals (after correcting for pathogen effects) of family‐level infection rate, we found a marginally significant positive correlation between 1 and 8 months of age (correlation coef. = 0.342, t = 1.993, df = 30, p = 0.0554; Figure 4a ), but no significant correlation between 1 and 10 months, (correlation coef. = −0.593, t = 1.4726, df = 4, p = 0.215; Figure 4b ), or between 8 and 10 months (correlation coef. = 0.485, t = 1.5669, df = 8, p = 0.156; Figure 4c ).
marginally significantP = 0.05551.1× alphagold
2i ), a marginally significant increase in approach speed (EYFP: 3.59 ± 0.28; hM4D: 5.24 ± 0.67; P = 0.0555, unpaired t -test) (Fig. 2j ), an increase in the mean duration of individual investigation (EYFP: 3.04 ± 1.16; hM4D: 7.258 ± 1.446; P = 0.0404, unpaired t -test) (Fig. 2k ), and a less percentage of stretched postures towards stimulus mice (EYFP: 86.22 ± 5.90; hM4D: 49.86 ± 6.71; P = 0.0006, unpaired t -test) (Fig. 2l ).