Barely Significant
← all phrases

marginal significance

3,089 sentences · 3,089 papers · 6,631 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.07

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

In the literature

marginal significancep=0.0551.1× alphagold
PD-L1 exhibited marginal significance among distinct subtypes (Kruskal-Wallis, p=0.055; figure 1A ) and was still a predictor for PFS (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.00, p=0.005) when adjusting for PTCL subtypes in the multivariate Cox regression algorithm ( figure 1C and online supplemental figure S1B ), indicating the strong and relatively independent predictive capability of PD-L1.
marginal significancep = 0.0551.1× alphagold
A comparison of the pairwise expression levels between miR-155-5p and mRNA BRCA1 within WBCs for each patient and carrier revealed a significant negative correlation ( p = 0.0001 and p = 0.034) ( Figure 7 A,B) for patients with breast and ovarian cancer, respectively, with marginal significance ( p = 0.055) for the carriers ( Figure 7 C), which was not the case for controls.
marginal significanceP = 0.0551.1× alphagold
Disease-free survival of subgroups by N stage In stratified analysis by lymph node involvement, we also found an inferior DFS in 11 BRCA1 carriers (germline or somatic) than 165 non-carriers with a marginal significance in the patients without lymph node involvement (3-year DFS rate: 81.8%±11.6% vs. 95.9%±1.7%; log-rank P = 0.055; Fig 2C ).
marginal significancep = 0.0551.1× alphagold
The model including shape, margin, and internal enhancement as predictor variables could significantly distinguish between malignant and non-malignant lesions ( p = 0.038; pseudo R 2 = 0.24), round shape independently reaching significance (OR: 12.91; 95% CI: 2.33-71.45; p = 0.003) and rim enhancement reaching marginal significance (OR: 7.15; 95% CI: 0.96-53.19; p = 0.055).
marginal significancep = 0.0551.1× alphagold
Additionally, while partialing out the effect of child age, there were negative correlations between the total CELF score of the child and the total number of adult utterances ( r [19] = −0.48, p = 0.031), total number of adult questions ( r [19] = −0.61, p = 0.004), number of adult closed questions ( r [19] = −0.57, p = 0.008), and marginal significance for number of adult open questions ( r [19] = −0.44, p = 0.055).
marginal significancep = 0.0551.1× alphagold
The pretreatment predictors or factors could be associated with poor/good outcomes even in the successfully recanalized AIS patients, and univariate logistic regression (Table 3 ) showed an association between volume of Tmax > 12s (critically hypoperfused region) and favorable outcome, but only had a marginal significance (OR, 0.986; 95% CI, 0.971-1, p = 0.055).