Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
Results Pre-experiment ratings As expected, participants found the android to be significantly less humanlike ( M android = 4.32, M control = 7.42, t (37) = 8.89, p <0.0001, d = −1.44), and felt less comfortable viewing his videos than those of the control (marginally significant two-tailed t-test: M android = 4.11, M control = 4.68, t (37) = 1.83, p = 0.08, d = 0.29).
approached significancep = 0.081.6× alpha
The correlation between the traders' 2D∶4D and their Sharpe Ratios, however, while displaying the expected sign, only approached significance at the 5% level (n = 47, r = −0.26, p = 0.08).
A note on trader Sharpe Ratios.
PLoS One · 2009 · PMC2776986
marginally significantp = .081.6× alphagold
There was a marginally significant main effect of the preceding trial type [ F (1, 17) = 3.45, p = .08, η 2 = .03], a significant main effect of the FA type [ F (1, 17) = 15.00, p = .001, η 2 = .10], and a significant interaction between two factors [ F (1, 17) = 24.359, p < .001, η 2 = .20].
approaching significancep = 0.081.6× alphagold
Whereas increased deaths from all leukaemia and all solid cancers are indicated, with hazard ratios (HR) approaching significance, (p = 0.08 and p = 0.26, respectively) the relative risk of death from non-cancer was markedly reduced in the male patients treated with radium compared to controls (HR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.72–0.91; p = <0.001).
difference was apparentp = .0801.6× alphagold
With a main effect of groups ( F (3,50) = 9.685, p < .0001; η 2 = 0.91), post hoc comparisons using Dunnett’s T3 procedure showed that although no VSA difference was apparent between the SNHL and NH groups ( F (1, 31) = 6.172, p = .080), both the COND and MIX groups exhibited significantly more compressed VSAs than the NH group did (NH vs COND: F (1, 35) = 20.736, p = .002; NH vs MIX: F (1, 34) = 13.965, p = .010).
fairly significantp=0.081.6× alphaqualifiedgold
The small-world clustering ( Fig 3D , left) for the positive edges showed a significant difference between CNT and MCS and a fairly significant difference (p=0.08) between CNT and UWS, but failed to distinguish between MCS and UWS, and the same for the negative edges, where it could only differentiate between CNT and UWS.