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 = .081.6× alphagold
Follow-up analyses for each time-bin indicated that the Group effect was significant for the first and second time-bin ( F (2,28) = 15.6, 6.9, p s < .01), marginally significant for the third time-bin ( F (2,28) = 2.8, p = .08), and non-significant for the last two time-bins ( p s > .1).
Tactile stimulation reduces fear in fish.
Front Behav Neurosci · 2013 · PMC3837339
marginally significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
Verification of previous findings The correlation between perceived–actual discrepancy and left anterior insula was marginally significant ( β = 0.41, p = 0.08), whereas that between perceived–ideal discrepancy and right temporoparietal junction was not significant ( β = 0.01, p = 0.78).
marginally significantp = .081.6× alphagold
There was a marginally significant main effect of the preceding trial type [ F (1, 17) = 3.45, p = .08, η 2 = .03], a significant main effect of the FA type [ F (1, 17) = 15.00, p = .001, η 2 = .10], and a significant interaction between two factors [ F (1, 17) = 24.359, p < .001, η 2 = .20].
marginally significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
There was a marginally significant correlation between serum prealbumin and LOS, both preoperatively (β = −0.66; 95% CI: −1.42 to −0.10; p = 0.08) and on the second postoperative day (β = −1.37; 95% CI: −2.87 to 0.11; p = 0.06).
marginally significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
Consistent with the prediction, we find a marginally significant difference in publication month ( t = 2.2, p = 0.08) in the expected direction between papers for which sequences were never submitted to GenBank and those for which sequences were submitted but accession numbers were not printed.
marginally significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
neutral) stimuli, in both visual and olfactory modalities, decreased d’ and thus impeded discrimination between healthy and unhealthy food [ t (15) = −3.16, p < 0.01; disgust d’ = 1.91 (0.78); neutral d’ = 2.11 (0.62)] whereas an opposite, marginally significant trend emerged for the social stimuli: social disgust (vs. neutral) stimuli increased d’ [ t (15) = 1.89, p = 0.08; disgust d’ = 2.11 (0.72); neutral d’ = 1.98 (0.77)] and thus improved food healthiness discrimination.