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 = 0.0871.7× alphagold
In addition, the H19 level showed a marginally significant association with all-cause mortality (HR 2.263, 95% CI: 0.889–5.760, P = 0.087), although it appeared to have no significant improvement for the CHA 2 DS 2 –VASc model for predicting all-cause mortality.
marginally significantp = 0.0871.7× alphagold
Marginally significant association was observed in platelet count (as a continuous variable) in a univariate Cox model (HR 0.981; 95% CI 0.960–1.003; p = 0.087) and a multivariate Cox model (HR 0.980; 95% CI 0.958–1.002; p = 0.077), adjusting for INR (HR 65.396; 95% CI 0.986–4335.876; p = 0.051) including patients with non-advanced cancer.
marginally significantP = 0.08721.7× alphagold
The association was statistically significant for several SF-36 scales, bodily pain ( P = 0.0129), general health ( P = 0.0148), vitality ( P = 0.027) and social functioning ( P = 0.0198), and marginally significant for the role emotional scale ( P = 0.0872). 29 An observational study that used data from NHANES (2001–2004) also reported a significant adverse effect of hypertension awareness on HRQoL. 8 Recently, a population survey in southwestern Finland (2005–2006) reported that the physical component of HRQ
marginally significantp ≤ 0.08791.8× alphagold
The genotype × parental treatment interaction effect was significant for total leaf area and mean single-leaf area ( Table 1 , p = 0.0292 and 0.0536, respectively), and the genotype × offspring treatment interaction effect was significant or marginally significant for all traits ( Table 1 , 0.0283 ≤ p ≤ 0.0879).
marginally significantp = 0.0881.8× alphagold
When the analyses were limited to the dyads who had same examiners at pre- and post-interventions (n = 75 out of 140 dyads; 53.6%), the interaction effect between time and treatment condition remained marginally significant, potentially due to limited statistical power ( F [1, 183] = 2.94, p = 0.088 for child latency; F [1, 183] = 2.83, p = 0.095 for examiner latency).