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 = 0.071.4× alphagold
For ∂ 15 N and sex, maturity stage and location a marginally significant relationship was found (∂ 15 N: p = 0.07, r 2 = 0.31, F 10,43 = 1.92) attributed to the fact that male individuals of S . pteropus do not grow as large as females and therefore occupy lower size classes with lower ∂ 15 N values ( Fig 5A ).
marginally significantP =.071.4× alphagold
Interestingly, participants’ ability to distinguish high-quality health resources showed a significant negative correlation with ease of finding information (ρ=−0.251, 95% CI −0.46 to −0.02; P =.04), whereas the correlation with information organization perception was marginally significant (ρ=−0.215, 95% CI −0.42 to 0.01; P =.07).
marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Further analysis showed that no significant difference in linear trend was found for the group that received sumatriptan first, but in the group that received placebo first, a marginally significant linear trend effect was noted (t = 2.039, two-sided p = 0.07, one-sided p = 0.04) (See table 3 ) Discussion Our results show that overall sumatriptan has no significant ability to provoke alcohol lsymptoms or to cause a desire or craving for alcohol.
marginally significantp<.071.4× alphagold
Specifically, anticipatory activity (i.e., timepoints 7–9) was reduced relative to what was observed for clock-checking, and the later activation peak appeared delayed and more gradual (i.e., timepoints 10–14) than that observed for the clock-onset response ( Figure 5a ), This was confirmed by the presence of a marginally significant condition X time interaction when comparing the clock-checks and PM-target response at these timepoints (7–14; F(7,133) = 1.94; p<.07).
marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Air temperature had a small but non-zero effect on the foraging probability of males with a marginally significant positive linear relationship (effective degrees of freedom [edf] = 0.71, χ 2 = 4.33, p = 0.07), whereas the effect was small and non-significant in females (edf = 0.41, χ 2 = 0.67, p = 0.23) (Fig. 5 C).