Barely Significant
← all phrases

marginal significance

5,070 sentences · 5,070 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 = 0.071.4× alphagold
3.2 Caecal worm intensity and reproduction The multiple linear regression analysis for average caecal worm count for individual bobwhite with seasonally averaged temperature and precipitation had a marginal significance (p = 0.07).
marginal significancep-value = 0.071.4× alphagold
Right medial superior frontal cortices showed higher HbR for recalling of the novel faces than same faces (ch 27, paired t-test, FDR corrected p-value = 0.07, marginal significance) while higher HbR for recalling of same faces was observed in left medial superior frontal cortex (ch 7, paired t-test, FDR corrected p-value = 0.07, marginal significance).
marginal significancep = 0.071.4× alphagold
The results for the training cohort showed marginal significance for CCR7 (p = 0.07) and significance for SPP1 (p = 0.0033), while in the testing cohort, significance was observed for CCR7 (p = 0.035) and marginal significance for SPP1 (p = 0.073) ( Figure 6F ).
marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
marginal significancep = 0.071.4× alphagold
Maternal education (OR: 1.56 (95% CI: 0.98–2.46); p = 0.057), was marginally significant and was included in the multivariate analysis; additionally low birth weight showed marginal significance (OR: 2.90 (95% CI: 1.12–7.44); p = 0.07), however the large number of missing values for birth weight (19.2% missing) and paternal age (10.9% missing) reduced the potential value as predictive factors and were therefore not included in the multivariate analysis.
marginal significancep = 0.071.4× alphagold
The emotion-by-diagnosis ANOVA confirmed the effect of diagnosis ( p < 0.001) with the poorest performance in patients with BD-I relative to those with BD-II and HC (all p ’s < 0.001), and showed the effect of emotion [ F (1, 84) = 31.02, p < 0.001] with the poorest performance for sadness relative to neutral [ t (84) = 5.57, p < 0.001], and a marginal significance for their interaction [ F (2, 84) = 2.68, p = 0.07] with planned comparisons showing Bonferroni-corrected significance for FER-sadness vs FER-neutral difference comparing patients with BD-I [ F (2, 84) = 4.081, p < 0.001] with HC [ F (2, 84) = 4.226, p < 0.001] but not with patients with BD-II [ F (2, 84) = 1.433, p = 0.156] (see Fig. 2 ).