Barely Significant
← all phrases

“only marginally significant”

5,077 sentences · 5,077 papers · 5,448 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p<1.0p=0.9

Listed by Hankins, posted since · Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

Major Findings First, we found that when audiences recognize a close relationship with social media influencers, even if this relationship is imagined and one-sided, they likely show more acceptance of the product placement and more willingness (although only marginally significant) to buy the product.
For female faces, utility estimates for masculinized eyebrows were higher in a long- ( M = 0.42, SD = 1.75) versus short-term ( M = 0.25, SD = 1.68) context, t (921) = 2.39, p = 0.017, d = 0.11, though this was only marginally significant after Bonferroni correction.
This indicated a strong synergistic or antagonistic effect between temperature and the N 2 flow rate on the kerosene-like yield, in contrast to the pyrolysis oil yield, where the AB interaction was only marginally significant.
On the other hand, the inverse influences in the Vis repeats ( Figure 14 , lower right plots), though only marginally significant, seemed to start low but to increase at the third Vis repeat, while the EM influences appeared to follow a weak form of an inverted-V function, peaking at the second repeat EM 2 and then falling back again at EM 3 .
Both IPV victimization and perpetration mediated the association between landlord-related forced moves and HIV sexual risk (indirect victimization effect, β = 0.09, SE = 0.05, p = .06; indirect perpetration effect, β = 0.16, SE = 0.07, p = .02), though IPV victimization was only marginally significant.
The interaction of age and type of task was only marginally significant (with means of 2,074, 985, and 950 ms in young and 2,507, 1,472, and 1,565 ms in old for ventral, mixed, and dorsal tasks respectively), F (2, 124) = 2.56, p = 0.08. 3.16.3 Imagery error rates Old participants made overall more errors than the young (with means of 18% and of 15%, respectively), F (1, 62) = 7.29, p = 0.009.
Conclusions The differences in fluctuating helical asymmetry between ‘African’ and ‘European’ slopes were either non-existent or only marginally significant (shell asymmetry of E. p. jebusitica was marginally greater on the north-facing slope), hence we cannot reject the null hypothesis for no differences between the slopes.
Not only did this analysis identify a global enrichment of TB susceptibility loci, but by intersecting the expression and GWAS data, we were able to identify a few interesting candidate genes, which were only marginally significant in the differential expression analysis (Supplementary Data S3 ) and in the original GWAS (Supplementary Data S4 ).