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 = 0.0741.5× alphagold
aureus at the same time point ( Figure 3D ), only three of the extract contents of TW and TA showed statistically significant differences: 0.04 ( p < 0.001), 0.08 ( p = 0.002), and 1.25 mg/mL ( p = 0.008), and an additional 0.63 mg/mL showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.074).
marginally significantp = 0.0741.5× alphagold
Repeated-measures ANOVA on PANSS and all its subscales showed a marginally significant interaction effect (group × time: F = 2.2, df = 1, 39, p = 0.074), nonsignificant group effect ( F = 0.74, df = 1, 39, p = 0.48), and time effect ( F = 1.6, df = 4, 39, p = 0.28).
marginally significantp = 0.0751.5× alphagold
The results showed a marginally significant interaction between time and group [ F (1,64) = 3.286, p = 0.075, η p 2 = 0.050]; this result supported the second hypothesis that students from the experimental group improved more on creativity than those from the control group ( Table 2 ).
marginally significantp = 0.0751.5× alphagold
A main effect between study partner concerns and baseline participant entorhinal tau burden was marginally significant ( t = 2.14, adj. p = 0.075), trending toward greater study partner-reported concerns for participants who had greater entorhinal tau burden at baseline.
marginally significantp = 0.0751.5× alphagold
This permutation test also identified a marginally significant cluster of activity from 380 to 430 ms ( p = 0.075; 10,000 permutations), corroborated by a marginal main effect of number of words according to a 2×2 repeated-measures ANOVA on activity during this time window ( F (1,17) = 3.52; p = 0.078; two-word canonical: 3.72 nAm avg.
marginally significantp = 0.0751.5× alphagold
Apart from traditional, all therapy modes at 130% eCAPT drove hyperemia responses significantly greater (p ≤ 0.0046, t 142 ≥ 3.701) than control (no SCS) with an average ΔSBV in the range of 15–20% relative to baseline (note: MF was marginally significant with p = 0.075, t 142 = 2.775, after Bonferroni-Holm correction).