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 = .0631.3× alphagold
The longitudinal analysis revealed a significantly different expression of ANG at CAF‐treated sites compared with lingual sites (estimated coefficient of −1.39 (95% CI [−2.45, −0.33]), p = .01), whereas a marginally significant difference was observed between TUN‐treated sites and lingual sites (estimated coefficient of −1.15 (95% CI [−2.36, 0.06]), p = .063) (Table S2 ).
marginally significantp=0.0631.3× alphagold
Results: Probiotic supplementation significantly influenced acetate titer (p=0,032) marginally significant for propionate and butyrate (p=0.063 and p=0.068, respectively) and the respondent with increasing SCFA’s metabolite are higher in probiotic group compared to the respondents in placebo group.
marginally significantp = .0631.3× alphagold
The intervention effect on information seeking was marginally significant at 6-months follow up (β = 0.52, p = .063) but significant at 12-months follow up (β = 0.61, p = .026; Fig. 5 ). 3.3 Secondary outcomes 3.3.1 Health-related quality of life (PedsQL) Significant beneficial effects of the intervention (study group × time, p < .05) were found at 6-months follow up (T1 vs T0) on social functioning, school functioning and on the summary scales psychosocial health ( Fig. 6 ) and total HRQoL ( Fig. 7 ); β ranging from 0.52–0.60, p ranging from 0.011 to 0.029 ( Table 3 ).
marginally significantp = .0631.3× alphagold
In column (2), we found directionally consistent associations between externalizing and on‐call shifts, although the coefficient was not significant, and we found only a marginally significant association with changes to schedule timing ( p = .063) We found evidence of significant protective effects of advance notice of 1–2 weeks and more than 2 weeks on externalizing behavior.
marginally significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
There was a significant effect of the training subcategory [ F (1, 201) = 12.85, p < 0.001, f = 0.24], an insignificant effect of training frame [ F (1, 201) = 1.05, p = 0.306], and a marginally significant effect of the predicted two-way interaction between the training subcategory and training frame [ F (1, 201) = 3.49, p = 0.063, f = 0.11].
marginally significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
sabaudus sierranevadensis ( F 1,16 = 8.22, p = 0.011), was marginally significant between A. nevadensis and B. ibericus ( F 1,15 = 4.04, p = 0.063) and between H. marginatus and B. ibericus ( F 1,15 = 3.59, p = 0.078), and was not significantly different between H. sabaudus sierranevadensis and B. ibericus ( F 1,15 = 1.63, p = 0.218).