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 = 0.0571.1× alphagold
The location–instruction interaction was marginally significant ( F (2,22) = 3.303; p = 0.057; η 2 = 0.231; BF 10 = 0.335), resulting from presaccadic enhancement (increased peak-SF during saccade preparation relative to fixation) surviving FDR correction only for the horizontal ( t = 3.082; p = 0.031; d = 0.728) and the upper vertical ( t = 3.082; p = 0.031; d = 0.728) meridian ( Fig. 6 b ).
marginally significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
The plasma S100B levels for the three AMS sufferers changed from 0.100 μg/l (95 % CI −0.029 to 0.229) at baseline to 0.127 μg/l (95 % CI −0.031 to 0.284) at high altitude which was marginally significant ( p = 0.057) compared to the non-AMS sufferers who showed a non-significant ( p = 0.35) change from 0.187 μg/l (95 % CI 0.102–0.272) at baseline to 0.143 μg/l (95 % CI 0.108–0.179) at altitude.
marginally significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
7 Similarly, a repeated measures ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction between media framing and the other participant’s nationality on the expected rate of outgroup preemptive strikes, F (1,125) = 3.69, p = 0.057, partial η 2 = 0.03; pairwise comparisons indicated that under both experimental conditions the expected rates of Chinese preemptive strikes (mo
marginally significantp = .0571.1× alphagold
The Emotion × Group Interaction was marginally significant, F (1,87) = 3.73, p = .057, η p 2 = .041, d Z = .21. 4 The priming score for ingroup happy faces ( M = 3.15, SD = 5.70) exceeded that for Middle-Eastern happy faces ( M = 1.05, SD = 5.37, see Table 1 ), t (87) = 2.46, p = .016, whereas ingroup ( M = −0.91, SD = 5.06) and outgroup ( M = −0.88, SD = 6.32) fearful faces were comparable in terms of mean priming scores; t (87) = −0.04 , p = . 970.
marginally significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
The relationship between explanations and condition were marginally significant for 5-year-olds [χ 2 (2) = 5.73, p = 0.057]. “No idea” responses were comparable in both conditions, however, there were more 5-year-olds in the arbitrary condition who referred to wrong explanations than in causal condition and there were more children in causal condition that referred to the “correct explanation” than in the arbitrary condition.
marginally significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
A marginally significant difference from zero for the slopes at 1 SD below the mean (29 years; B = 0.30, SE = 0.16, p = 0.057) indicated the trend that younger age and a higher social media use time were associated with higher levels of perceived loneliness.
marginally significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
The difference on FT3 between the subgroups with and without suicide attempts in the female group was not significant, F (1, 906) = 1.32, p = 0.25 > 0.05, η p 2 = 0.001; while the difference on FT3 in the male group was marginally significant, F (1, 906) = 3.62, p = 0.057 , η p 2 = 0.004.