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 = 0.081.6× alphagold
In a similar analyses for reclassification based on a mGFR threshold of 45 ml/min/1.73 m 2 the CKD-Epi_cr-cys equation tended to improve classification compared with all other equations; the NRI was statistically significant compared with the BIS_cr (NRI = 15.8, p = 0.04), marginally significant compared with the CKD-EPI_cr (NRI = 20.6, p = 0.08), and not significant versus the CKD-Epi_cys (NRI = 9.7, p = 0.20), and the BIS_cr-cys equation (NRI = 2.9, p = 0.16) (Additional file 2 : Table S2).
marginally significantp=0.081.6× alphagold
A marginally significant association with ‘ban people who are born after the year 2010 from smoking CCs’ (AOR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.49–1.05, p=0.08) was also observed. ‘Unknown’ perceptions were associated with less support for each of the 5 individual policy items, all 5 policy items, at least 1 policy item and ‘banning the sale of CCs’ (all p<0.05).
marginally significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
Relationship of executive function and volumetric brain structure measures at school-age Canonical correlation between the 3 EF measures (ROCF, Incidental Accuracy/Copy and Immediate Recall conditions, and Structural Accuracy/Copy condition) and the 6 Regional Volumetric Brain Measures (cerebellum inclusive of vermis, brainstem, right caudate, occipital white matter, left nucleus accumbens and left insula) were marginally significant (χ 2 = 30.40, df = 21, p = 0.08), indicating a marginal association between EF and brain volumetric measures at school-age.
marginally significantp = 0.0801.6× alphagold
Multivariate analyses showed that the PET/CT-guided technique for target volume delineation was an independent prognostic factor for 5-year LRFS, DFS, DMFS, and OS (p = 0.039, p = 0.030, p = 0.035 and p = 0.028, respectively), and was marginally significant in predicting LRRFS (p = 0.080).
marginally significantp=0.081.6× alphagold
Analysis by subcategories of damage in the whole cohort A significant global reduction in the risk for accruing lupus-related damage was seen among MP users (adjusted HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.82, p=0.02), with a marginally significant risk reduction of GC-related damage (adjusted HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.13, p=0.08).
marginally significantp = 0.0801.6× alphagold
According to results of the multiple regression analysis (AIC = 2936.678, f 2 = 0.130, power (1- β ) = 0.186; see Table S2 ), the main effect of reward was marginally significant ( β = −13.346, SE = 7.430, 95% CI = −27.861–1.157, p = 0.080), suggesting that reward CERT in the reward-present conditions were marginally shorter than in the reward-absent conditions.