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 = 0.0901.8× alphagold
Notably, interest in monogamous reproductive strategies predicts women’s preferences for men’s faces indicating high levels of agreeableness ( Brown et al., 2019 [though note effect was marginally significant, p = 0.090]), and low levels of extraversion ( Brown & Sacco, 2017 ), masculinity ( Kruger, 2006 ) and narcissism ( Marcinkowska et al., 2015 ).
marginally significantP-value = 0.0901.8× alphagold
Nonetheless, it should be noted that the interaction effect of renal dysfunction (creatinine level) and treatment was marginally significant (P-value = 0.090), suggesting the higher adverse effect of DIG+/BB+ on mortality in patients with renal dysfunction comorbidity.
marginally significantp-value = 0.091.8× alphagold
In chitosan-treated plants, peroxidase activity in the shoot (0.66 ± 0.11 ΔOD/min·mg protein) was not different from that in control plants but was doubly increased in root tissues (30.80 ± 8.06 ΔOD/min·mg protein) with a marginally significant difference (p-value = 0.09) as relative to control.
marginally significantp -value = 0.091.8× alphagold
Multigroup comparisons revealed significant racial/ethnic differences in the magnitude of association between history of low vaccination and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine ( p -value = 0.01) and marginally significant differences in the magnitude of association between overall county-level vaccination barriers and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine ( p -value = 0.09) ( Supplementary Table S3 ).
marginally significantP =.091.8× alphagold
The marginally significant variance in individual slopes for pain catastrophizing (σ2=1.00; P =.09) and the negative intercept-slope covariance (σ=−0.38; P =.09) suggest that participants with higher baseline catastrophizing tended to show a more pronounced decrease over time.
marginally significantp < .091.8× alphagold
However, for subjective sexual arousal there were marginally significant interaction effects for Stimulus X Gender, p < .09, and Stimulus X Condition X Gender, p = .06, meaning men and women tended to differ in ratings of subjective sexual arousal towards the CSs, with men rating the CS+, and women rating the CS− as slightly more arousing.