Barely Significant

Excerpts

5,163 sentences · 1 filter applied

a marginal trendp = 0.0771.5× alphagold
Our findings suggest that both types of novelty were represented in the memorability subspace following event boundaries, with strong evidence for co-occurrence novelty (R2 difference = 0.23, p = 0.009, from a one-sided permutation test) and a marginal trend for valence novelty (R2 difference = 0.10, p = 0.077), but not preceding them (co-occurrence novelty: R 2 difference = 0.03, p = 0.212; valence novelty: R 2 difference = −0.04, p = 0.892) (Fig. 5C , Supplementary Fig. 7A , B ).
marginally significantp = 0.0781.6× alphagold
The difference across platforms in the moderating effect of partisanship on the treatment effect was significant for people who voted for Trump versus those who did not ( p = 0.033), marginally significant for participants’ preference for the Democratic versus Republican party ( p = 0.078), and not significant for Democratic versus Republican party membership ( p = 0.198); although these results should be interpreted cautiously in light of low statistical power.
marginally significantP = 0.0801.6× alphagold
4a ), we found a significant interaction between time-period and layer effects ( F = 30.34, P = 0.0004) at 10–25 Hz and a marginally significant interaction ( F = 3.90, P = 0.080) and period effect ( F = 3.75, P = 0.085) at 25–40 Hz (Supplementary Fig. 4a ), as well as a significant layer effect during the cue and delay periods (Fig. 3b ; F = 11.58, P = 0.0078 for cue; F = 5.54, P = 0.043 for delay).
marginally significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
Regression analysis showed that there was a marginally significant interaction between total life events and percent time spent in institutions on externalizing problems at age 16, B = 0.003, 95% CI [0.00, 0.01], β = 0.18, p = 0.08, and a significant interaction between the number of independent events and percent time in institutions on externalizing problems, B = 0.006, 95% CI [0.001, 0.01], β = 0.25, p = 0.01.
marginally non-significantp < 0.081.6× alpha
The amount of overlap in the top n genes was statistically significantly higher than expected for three species pairs, and marginally non-significant ( p < 0.08) for an additional two species pairs, such that we found some evidence of non-random overlap for 5/6 species pairs (Supplementary Table 9 ).
borderline significantP =0.081.6× alphagold
These profound individual changes were, however, masked by remarkable within-state variation among the other subjects so that the average group-level fold change following the intervention was moderate and only borderline significant (log 10 FC=−0.39; P =0.08; paired Wilcoxon test).