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<.030.6× alphagold
Planned comparisons further showed that monosyllables with large rises in sonority (e.g., blif ) produced reliably more accurate responses relative to small rises (e.g., bnif , t1(39) = 8.68, p<.0001; t2(45) = 3.25, p<.003), which, in turn produced reliably more accurate responses compared to sonority plateaus (e.g., bdif , t1(39) = 7.14, p<.0001; t2(45) = 5.27, p<.0001); the contrast between sonority plateaus and falls (e.g., lbif ) was marginally significant (t1(39) = 2.37, p<.03; t2(45) = 1.13, p<.28) To demonstrate that the effect of syllable type is not due to artifact associated with binary data [31] , we also submitted the results to a General Mixed Effects Model logistic regression model with syllable (monosyllables vs. disyllables) and type (e.g., blif, bnif, bdif, lbif ) as fixed effects, and participants and items as random effects.
Language universals engage Broca's area.
PLoS One · 2014 · PMC3990587
marginally significantp=0.030.6× alphagold
Only the African sample showed marginally significant F ST higher than zero (0.08, p=0.03, not significant after Bonferroni correction), while other populations all had slightly negative estimates pointing to the limited role of the TYR locus in genetic differentiation within studied (sub-) continental groups ( Table S5 ) [ 74 ].
marginally significantp = 0.030.6× alphagold
This success rate was mainly influenced by the shoal size (p<0.0001) rather than by the number of residence events (p>0.05) that has only a marginally significant effect when coupled with the shoal size (p = 0.03) as shown by the model Succes ∼ shoal size + CRE + shoal size * CRE (Null deviance = 2152.38 with 51 df, Residual deviance = 261.22 with 48 df).
marginally significantp = 0.030.6× alphagold
However, for those who were ever smokers, we identified a marginally significant association between genetically predicted T2DM risk and lung cancer risk (OR = 0.92; 95%CI = 0.85–0.99; p = 0.03) although no significant association was observed in never smokers ( OR = 1.00; 95%CI = 0.93–1.07; p = 0.96; P heterogeneity = 0.13).
marginally significantp = .030.6× alphagold
Regarding the relationship between autonomic stress response and post-error behaviors, the partial correlation analysis controlling for education and personality traits revealed a marginally significant (using Bonferroni corrected significance level) positive correlation between the HR increase during treatment and PES in the stress group, r = .391, p = .03 ( Fig 3 , left), but no such correlation was found in the control group, r = .072, p = .76.
marginally significantp = .030.6× alphagold
Note, however, that even for these relatively uninformative studies the evidence favors \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\mathcal {H}_{0}$\end{document} H 0 , whereas the respective classical p values equal p = .06 (i.e., “marginally significant”), p = .03 (i.e., “significant, reject \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\mathcal {H}_{0}$\end{document} H 0 ”), and p = .06 (i.e., “marginally significant”). 3 Finally, consider the evidence for the studies in which the effect is in the opposite direction and most of the posterior mass is concentrated on negative values of ρ .
marginally significantp = 0.030.6× alphagold
The (transformed) DASS‐21 negative mood index was entered in the last step and explained 14% of additional variance, Δ F (1, 300) = 87.49, p < 0.001; DASS‐21 was significantly positively associated with IA symptoms, while Executive Dysfunction, age and gender—but not SR—remained significant, and Apathy now showed a weak, marginally significant ( p = 0.03) negative relationship to IAT scores as an apparent suppressor variable effect.