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
The regression analysis showed a significant main effect for spatial ability [β = −0.507, se(HC4) = 0.181, p = 0.007], no main effect of condition [β = 0.703, se(HC4) = 0.399, p = 0.10], and a marginally significant interaction effect between spatial ability and condition [β = 0.224, se(HC4) = 0.123, p = 0.07].
marginally significantP = 0.071.4× alphagold
During periods 3–5, when the children in the LNS groups received the supplement directly, food-insecurity scores were significantly lower in the LNS group when the children were 11–12.9 mo old (PSR: 0.96, P = 0.03) and marginally significant when they were 16–18.9 mo old ( P = 0.07) and ≥23 mo old ( P = 0.08).
marginally significantP =0.071.4× alphagold
The results indicated that NP [unstandardized β=11.47, 95% CI (4.95,17.99), P <0.01], non-anemia [unstandardized β=10.68, 95% CI (4.16,17.19), P <0.01], incomplete injury [unstandardized β=24.82, 95% CI (17.99,31.64), P <0.01], and lumbar-sacral injury level [unstandardized β=16.02, 95% CI (6.90,25.13), P <0.01] were independent predictors of SCIM total score at discharge, while the thoracic injury level was marginally significant [unstandardized β=7.05, 95% CI (−0.54, 14.64), P =0.07] ( Table 2 ).
marginally significantP = 0.071.4× alphagold
A nonmonotonic trend could be observed; however, the differences between the first local maximum to the local minimum, and the local minimum to the next local maximum were marginally significant ( r s c ̄ 0.5 mm = 0.0266 ± 0.0032 vs. r s c ̄ 2.5 mm = 0.0165 ± 0.0021, P = 0.07; and r s c ̄ 2.5 mm = 0.0165 ± 0.0021 vs. r s c ̄ 4 mm = 0.0266 ± 0.0054, P = 0.1; green curve in Fig. 6 B ).
marginally significantP = 0.071.4× alphagold
There appeared to be a trend of decreasing hazards with a greater propensity to receive chemotherapy near death, ranging from 1.32 to 0.85, and the interaction between receipt of an aggressive approach to chemotherapy and propensity quintiles was marginally significant (P = 0.07). 3) Results from instrumental variable analysis We report selected baseline characteristics of patients according to geographic quintiles of chemotherapy utilization in Table 5 .
marginally significantp = .071.4× alphagold
Adding eosinophil percentage to the model reduced the magnitude of the interaction coefficient, and the interaction term became marginally significant, b = -0.010, SE = 0.005, 95% CI [-0.020, 0.001], p = .07; however, the coefficient for eosinophil percentage itself was nearly zero, b = -0.0001, p = .98.